Baroness Amos: My Lords, I share the concern at the scale of what is happening expressed by the noble Lord. As the noble Lord mentioned, deforestation is a very serious problem in Brazil, which has lost around 18 per cent of its rainforest. As he said, it is also happening in other parts of the world.
	Through our development programmes and our funding of the World Bank, the UN and other organisations, we are not seeking simply to arrest deforestation, but to work with developing country governments to form partnerships that will enable them to develop sustainability in the rainforest and ensure that the livelihoods of indigenous people are not destroyed. The noble Lord may be aware that, under our presidency, G8 environment and development Ministers met in Derby and, as result of that meeting, they are aiming to develop a strategy across the G8 on these matters over a period of time.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Eden is probably the most serious international issue that the countries of the world have to face? Can she tell the House to what extent other countries are willing to co-operate?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is co-operation from other countries, both within the G8—as I mentioned, development and environment Ministers met in Derby—and also in the context of our work within the United Nations and the World Bank. A number of countries are coming together to work with developing countries, and the European Union is working on forming partnerships with developing countries on these matters over a period of time.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, is the Minister aware that satellite surveillance by Brazil itself brought this to international notice? Brazil is as anxious as anybody to do something about it. Can the Minister give priority to ensuring that the EU, which is intending to bring in a forest law enforcement, governance and trade licensing regulation, which will deal with illegal logging, is speeded up? Can she ensure that this country investigates and prosecutes all cases of illegally logged wood imported into the UK?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord says about confidence in the United States' judicial system. Of course, a lot of confidence has been restored as a result of the actions taken by the United States Supreme Court.
	We have real safeguards in the legislation for 2003. Information can properly be provided, and, indeed, the United States expect and give us information in accordance with their standard, which is "probable cause". Those appear to work very well.

Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, even accepting that it may sometimes be justified in extradition matters to adopt simplified procedure and even to set less stringent tests, does the Minister not accept that, as a matter of good government and even good international practice, the procedure should be carried out only when it is done fully on a bilateral or reciprocal basis? If it is correct that at the moment the traffic is only in one direction, should the United Kingdom not suspend the practice—I insist "the practice"—until the United States accept in practice that what is good for the goose is good for the gander—I hope that that is not a politically incorrect way of putting it—and accept that the practice should be carried out on a reciprocal bilateral basis?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the import of the noble and learned Lord's question. In fact, the practical consequences of what we are doing now are very reciprocal. We make applications to them. They adhere to those and make applications to us. I express our genuine disappointment that the United States' authorities have not found the time or energy to ratify the provision. We are pushing the issue very hard.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the State Department has disclosed under the American Freedom of Information Act, a message sent on, I think, 26 March 2003 from the American embassy in London to the State Department. That message, discussing the effect of the treaty on extradition to the USA, said:
	"Key changes will include streamlined extradition procedures and the lowering of evidentiary requirements for extradition from the current 'prima facie' standard to a standard based on probable cause".
	We know that what happened was that the evidential standards were not lowered; they were abolished altogether. Why was there that change in plan, and when did it happen?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know about that particular memo. The standards have not been abolished. The noble Lord participated fully in the whole of the passage of the Bill, which is now the 2003 Act. We went through all the safeguards. I regret to say that it is simply not correct to say that there is no evidential standard; there is. Robust information needs to be provided, and that is provided properly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the view that it is unequal in process and substance. The noble Lord will know that before the 2003 Act there was a degree of unequalness in treatment because we demanded of the United States that they produce evidence on a prima facie basis and they demanded of us "probable cause". What has now happened is that they demand "probable cause", and the information that we demand of them is equivalent to that "probable cause".
	So now, contrary to what has happened before, there is parity. We are able speedily to extradite the properly identified people. Also we are asked and able to make proper application to the US, to which they respond always. I agree that there is disappointment about the formality of ratification not having taken place, but I reassure the House that it does not materially affect substance.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that the way in which extradition is considered is where it is most appropriate for trials to take place. So, for instance, if a matter occurs in another country and all the evidence is there and all the witnesses are there, it is perfectly proper to make an application for extradition. If an offence is committed in this country, we, too, have an opportunity to decide whether a proper prosecution should take place here. That remains the position. It was the position before, and it is still the position now.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the House will not be reassured by his answers so far? Will he accept that the form of Companies Act inquiry that the Government have chosen has been much criticised in recent years, particularly after the experience in, to name but three, the Guinness, Maxwell and TransTec cases. Will he accept that that is primarily because of the length of time that such inquiries take to report and the freezing of public comment during that period in order to protect the legal rights of individuals who are the subject of the inquiry?
	Will the Minister also accept that there is a suspicion that this form of inquiry has been chosen by the Government in order to freeze for years public discussion of the issues to avoid potential embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the powers of the inspector to take evidence are quite wide. I believe that they should encompass the sort of things that the noble Lord requested. On what happened in 2002, I should make it clear that the Government's role was not to run the negotiations between BMW and the potential acquirers. The Alchemy bid for low-volume sports car production failed because it could not agree terms with BMW. I remind the House that, at the time, the Phoenix bid had cross-party support. Mrs Angela Browning, then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said when this was debated in the House of Commons:
	"We welcome the fact that the Phoenix bid has been secured. We are particularly encouraged that it attracted financial support from the market".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/00; col 646.]
	Dr Vincent Cable said in the same debate:
	"May I add a warm welcome to the announcement, and extend congratulations to Mr Towers and his team . . . in the face of much scepticism?".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/00; col. 648.]
	He said that the announcement was "unambiguously excellent news".

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the response to the current crisis has been robust and swift. We have raised our concerns directly with the government of Zimbabwe, with our ambassador in Harare and my noble friend Lord Triesman summoned the Zimbabwean chargé d'affaires on 13 June. Our ambassador to the UN raised this issue directly with the Secretary-General this week. As the noble Lord may be aware, Zimbabwe was raised at the United Nations Security Council by the UN Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egelund, in the context of the humanitarian situation facing southern Africa.
	Our position with regard to a Security Council resolution has not, for the moment, changed, As the noble Lord is aware, it is believed that if there were to be such a resolution, it would not be passed, and that would give comfort to Mugabe.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, nobody is contemplating direct intervention. Clearly quiet diplomacy is not working at the moment. However, we are working with the United Nations and our European Union partners to bring pressure to bear upon the abhorrent regime in Zimbabwe. At some stage, there has to be a change, but the Government believe that this is the way to continue to act.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, pursuant to Standing Order 74 and the resolution of the House of 16 December 1997, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:
	L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Dykes, B. Gale, B. Goudie, L. Greenway, L. Howard of Rising, L. Mancroft.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Wales, in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"Devolution has proved to be a success both for Wales and for the rest of the United Kingdom. By establishing the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, following the endorsement of a referendum, the Government have moved the process of decision-making closer to the people.
	"Six years on, the benefits can clearly be seen: record levels of employment, rising standards in education, and ground-breaking initiatives such as the Children's Commissioner, free bus travel for the over-60s and the disabled, and Assembly learning grants. ***
	"With equal numbers of male and female members, and pioneering commitments to open government, sustainable development and equal opportunities, the Assembly has been a progressive institution, attracting interest from around the world.
	"After the experience of six years of devolution, and two full sets of elections, it is appropriate now to review and improve the working of the Assembly—not to make change for change's sake, but to ensure that it continues to meet people's needs in Wales and remains accessible and accountable to them.
	"The White Paper therefore covers three key issues which the Government believe need to be tackled to deliver better governance for Wales. It addresses the response of the National Assembly to the report of the commission on its powers and electoral arrangements, chaired by Lord Richard of Ammanford, and the commitments made in the Labour Party's general election manifesto.
	"First, the White Paper contains the Government's proposals for legislation to effect a formal separation between the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government.
	"The lack of a clear separation between the Assembly itself and Assembly Ministers and the civil servants working for them has generated confusion about who is responsible for decisions. And, under the corporate structure, Ministers are in the contradictory position of sitting as members of subject committees meant to scrutinise their decisions.
	"Secondly, the Government are proposing to give the Assembly, gradually over a number of years, enhanced legislative powers in defined policy areas where it already has executive functions. As a first step, the Government have decided, from now onwards, to draft parliamentary Bills in a way which gives the Assembly wider and more permissive powers to determine the detail of how the provisions should be implemented in Wales. That will not require any change to the Government of Wales Act, but will require a more consistent approach to drafting legislation for Wales.
	"As a second step, we propose to put in place a streamlined procedure enabling Parliament to give the Assembly powers to modify legislation or to make new provision on specific matters or defined areas of policy within—and only within—the fields in which the Assembly currently exercises functions. Orders in Council conferring these powers would be made at the request of the Assembly Government and would be laid by the Secretary of State and be subject to specific authorisation by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedures. It means that more legislation will be 'made in Wales', and that the Assembly Government will be able to secure more effectively and more quickly the legislative tools it needs to get on with the job of building a world-class Wales, with a globally-competitive economy, and high-quality public services.
	"These enhanced legislative powers are adaptations of the current settlement and do not require a referendum. However, it may prove in the future that even these additional powers and streamlined procedures are still insufficient to address the Assembly's needs. The Government have therefore agreed to provide the option of further enhanced law-making powers. That would mean transferring primary legislative powers over all devolved fields directly to the Assembly. But, as a fundamental change to the Welsh devolution settlement that option would require the support of the electorate through a post-legislative referendum, triggered, first, by a two-thirds majority of Assembly Members, and, secondly, by a vote by Parliament. The Government envisage no particular timetable for this, as it would be dependent on a consensus which certainly does not exist at present.
	"The history of Welsh devolution referendums is salutary. The big "No" vote in 1979 showed the dangers of conducting a referendum before sufficient consensus had emerged, and the Government remain conscious of the narrow majority in 1997 when it appeared that there was indeed such a consensus.
	"I note that the Richard commission itself saw the acquisition of primary powers as a process which would take a number of years to achieve, and not before 2011. My own view is that the new Assembly arrangements should be allowed to bed down through the next Assembly term between 2007 and 2011 and that there is no case for considering a referendum until at least the following Assembly term of office.
	"The people of Wales may wish to be convinced of the reasons for going beyond the new enhanced law-making powers before being invited to vote in a referendum. We therefore need some years' experience of the new system before we can make a proper assessment of when that might be.
	"Finally, we propose to deal with a weakness in the existing additional member electoral system for the Assembly. There is widespread concern that the present operation of the regional list system in Wales is damaging the vitally important relationship between Members and their constituents, and indeed, causing unnecessary tensions between Members themselves.
	"For losing candidates in constituency elections to be able to become Assembly members through the regional list, and thus claim to act as a Member for that very same constituency, both devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to voting in constituency elections. We therefore propose to amend the provisions in the Government of Wales Act to prevent individuals from simultaneously being candidates in constituency elections and being eligible for election from party lists. Candidates will have to make a choice.
	"I believe that the proposals contained in the White Paper provide a practical, common-sense road map to sensible, staged improvement of the existing arrangements.
	"One of the key reasons why the transition to devolved government in Wales has been a smooth one is that we have moved at a pace determined by the people of Wales. This White Paper reflects that guiding principle. It will provide a reformed structure that is more accountable, more participatory and more effective, giving more powers to the Assembly, leading to better governance for a better Wales. I commend it to the House".
	My Lords, that completes the Statement.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Wales. It is a significant Statement in that it points us towards the Government's way ahead for devolution in Wales. But I do not believe that it will please either ardent devolutionists or sceptical critics of the process. It extends devolution with one hand and reasserts central government control with the other.
	The Statement and the White Paper begin with the story of the success of devolution in Wales—high employment, free bus passes for the elderly and so on—and conveniently ignores the failures, such as the cock-ups over student fees, the still spluttering bonfire of the quangos and the interminable hospital waiting lists. It would take all the magical powers of Merlin to spin those outcomes into a success story.
	But let me begin with the first of the three prongs of the White Paper: the proposal to abandon the corporate structure of the National Assembly and split the executive, the Assembly Government, from the Assembly as legislature. That is a very welcome reform for which some of us have been calling for some time. The current structure has resulted in confusion in the public mind, where the Assembly has wrongly become synonymous with the Assembly Government. When the Government's actions are statutorily attributable to the corporate Assembly, real accountability flies out of the window. It is high time that they were separated.
	But the proposal will mean a major, radical change in the character of the Assembly. Its main function in future will be to hold its government to account, and that means scrutinising their activities with a vengeance. The cosiness of the current committee system, whereby Ministers sit alongside Assembly Members, which attracted the critical eye of the Richard commission, will disappear, and the relationship between Ministers and Members will be more akin to what we are familiar with at Westminster. Can the Assembly cope with the total change of attitude required? I hope so.
	The second prong of the White Paper is concerned with the transfer of primary legislative powers. Yes, the Assembly can have them in certain devolved areas if the Assembly Government ask the Secretary of State to obtain an Order in Council granting such powers in a specific area and both Houses of Parliament approve the order by affirmative resolution. The Bill establishing a Commissioner for Older People, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading yesterday, is an example of the sort of thing that the Government have in mind. Will that be a tolerable procedure for a self-respecting, democratically elected body? The question will be asked, we may be sure. But it is that or nothing, or the present system, which I am glad the Government intend to improve as regards the style and framework of legislation presented and to streamline in so far as pre-legislative scrutiny is concerned. I hope that your Lordships' House will be involved in such joint scrutiny too.
	In the longer term—six years hence and possibly more—further primary legislative powers may be granted subject to an affirmative referendum. That will be triggered by a two-thirds majority in favour at the Assembly, endorsed by the approval of this Parliament. This is a two pressure trigger, obviously devised by someone familiar with a .303 rifle. But it is not so much a trigger as a blunderbuss to stop a referendum in its tracks. Those proposals will go down like a lead balloon and prompt endless recriminations about Wales being treated differently from Scotland. It will be damned as discrimination on a national scale. The Government's answer is that there is no consensus currently in Wales in favour of an outright transfer of primary legislative powers—and they are probably right on that score. But there is no reason why we should not have a "preferendum", in which various proposals could be put to the electorate.
	The most immediate outcry will be against the third prong of the White Paper—the proposal to change the electoral system so that first-past-the-post constituency candidates cannot appear as list candidates anywhere in Wales, even outside the area covering their constituency. How can this be wrong in Wales and right in Scotland? While we are aware that the Richard commission was critical of the current arrangements, we do not believe they should be changed piecemeal. The White Paper proposal will mean each party finding many more candidates—and I do not believe that any party in Wales has an abundance of candidates of high quality. We want only the very best to become Assembly Members under either scheme of election. It is not only the minority parties who will suffer under the new proposals; the Labour Party too may lose some of its leading lights in the Assembly who are elected by the list system.
	Will these proposals, if implemented, result in better governance for Wales, as the White Paper's title proclaims? The Government believe they will, but that may be because the proposals mean the greater involvement of central government in the Assembly's affairs. I see that the Secretary of State proposes to draw up new Standing Orders for the Assembly himself. That will occasion a rumpus. We have already noted his controlling role in securing Orders in Council, allowing the Assembly primary legislative powers.
	My overall impression is that the Government's enthusiasm for devolution as a cure-all is flagging. Perhaps their experience in the north-east of England accounts for it. They certainly appear to be turning the tables on the National Assembly for Wales. Whether they will be allowed to do so with impunity remains to be seen, but I should not be surprised if their plans were rejected. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when the Government expect to introduce legislation to implement the White Paper.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading out the Statement, and for giving us the opportunity to look at the Statement before reading it out. We welcome a model for further devolution of powers from Westminster to Wales. Certainly we welcome the splitting up of the corporate body of the Welsh Assembly into an executive on one hand and the legislature on the other. That is logical and, indeed, overdue. I for one was not happy with the situation when the Bill went through Parliament in 1998.
	I believe that the Assembly will function better and that there will be better scrutiny. But why are there no proposals for an increase in the number of Assembly Members, as proposed by the Richard commission, which focused on the importance of ensuring that all legislation was properly scrutinised? For those like myself who have been striving for a Welsh parliament for some considerable time, it is very disappointing that full primary legislative powers are not ceded to the Assembly. The Government's proposals for legislation are really a half-way house. There is a bit of a get-out clause in adopting parts of the Richard commission report, particularly 13.2, as a final solution. We have no real hard promises about what the long-term situation will be.
	Will the Minister confirm that the Government in Westminster can block Welsh legislation through Orders in Council, which may not go through and could possibly be made into barriers for procedures in promoting lost legislation? Maybe some of these proposals are a device for avoiding a referendum, perhaps to save some of Labour's own MPs in Wales who do not agree with full legislative powers and see this as a way out—perhaps to avoid a reduction in the number of MPs in Wales, with their full legislative powers. We believe that the Government have lost a huge opportunity to give Wales full legislative powers, as proposed by the Richard commission, which was an all-party commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
	The commission was extremely thorough and took a lot of evidence. I understand that the process and the report cost more than £1 million. Indeed, one of the proposals that the Liberal Democrats made when going into coalition with Labour in the Assembly was that a review of the legislature and the powers of the Assembly should be undertaken. It is an excellent report with a target date for implementation after 2011. Perhaps the Minister agrees that the Government have salami-sliced parts of the Richard report as regards a possible final answer for legislative procedures for Wales.
	Obviously, we welcome the possibility—as outlined on page 6 of the Statement—of further legislative powers for Wales. However, that is left as an open question. The middle paragraph on page 6 states:
	"However, it may prove in the future that even these additional powers"—
	that is, those in the White Paper—
	"and streamlined procedures are still insufficient to address the Assembly's needs. The Government has therefore agreed to provide the option of further enhanced law-making powers".
	The Statement does not say when that might occur, or even whether it will occur. It is as if it is not finally attainable—we have supported devolution for a very long time—because the apple is slightly out of reach on the tree. I hope that the Minister will disabuse me of that view.
	The proposed voting system quite correctly takes on board the Richard commission critique. There is no question that it is a "duff" system as regards first-pass-the-post and regional members. But why, oh why, do the Government not adopt the commission's proposal of election by single transferable vote? That is a better and far more proportional system which would operate to the advantage of all the people of Wales and all the parties in Wales.
	The White Paper leaves open the possibility of a government of a different complexion from that in Wales at present, making mincemeat of the Welsh Assembly. The Minister will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, mention the word "preferendum". We know that the Conservatives' "preferendum" includes a question which would see the abolition of the Assembly at some future unknown time. If there had been progress on the Richard commission proposals, there would have been an ordered process to give full legislative powers to the Assembly after 2011. I and my party believe that this will be seen in Wales as dropping the ball just short of the try line.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Livsey, for their comments on the Statement. I begin by drawing attention to the fact that if noble Lords, or, indeed, anyone, wishes to comment on the White Paper, they have the opportunity to do so. That should be done by Friday 16 September. Sensible proposals for the White Paper will be considered during the consultative period.
	I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, welcomes the separation of the Assembly into a legislature and an executive. All parties in the Assembly are keen on that. I see absolutely no reason why the Assembly should find it intolerable to enact measures under the terms of an Order in Council approved by Parliament. There is no question of Parliament approving the detail of the measures; that would, of course, be for the Assembly. For example, yesterday we discussed the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill. An Order in Council will probably have been phrased to,
	"Establish and make provision about the office of Commissioner for Older People in Wales; to make provision about the functions of the Commissioner for Older People in Wales; and for connected purposes".
	That is the Long Title of the Bill.
	As for treating Wales differently from Scotland, in 1997 the people of Wales voted for the current settlement. Her Majesty's Government judge that there is no consensus in Wales for equivalent powers to those of Scotland. The Government's proposals to improve the current settlement but to make no radical change are in line with the wishes of the people of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, should take that point on board as regards his comment that we should cede primary legislative powers to the Assembly now. There is not the will for that. If there were a referendum, we would probably lose it. In our view that would be a disaster.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentioned the proposed change to the electoral arrangements. I draw his attention to the Electoral Reform Society's submission to the Richard commission, in which it was quite damning about the measure. It states:
	"A system in which candidates can lose elections but nevertheless win seats undermines respect for the electoral process . . . if defeated candidates are perceived to enter the Assembly through a back door, it can damage public confidence in the system".
	In the previous election some Assembly Members were elected having obtained 5, 6 or 7 per cent of the vote. Such a system is indefensible. That is why we decided to take action against that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked about timing. We consider that it would be inappropriate to make any changes during the course of an Assembly. I am sure that he would agree with that. We plan to introduce a Bill before Christmas. All the changes can be made at the time of the Assembly elections in May 2007. I should point out that the changes we propose to the corporate structure are uncontroversial and have been welcomed by both noble Lords. However, they are extremely complex and will take some time to work through.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. We have discussed why we are not devolving all power at the moment. We would be very happy to consider any representations on more Assembly Members that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, wishes to make; it is an interesting issue. The noble Lord asked whether Parliament could block a measure if a Secretary of State were to refuse permission for it. Obviously, he or she would be obliged to publish their reasons. We believe that that is sufficient to prevent a Secretary of State refusing a measure simply because he wished to. However, that is not the intention of the measure and we do not anticipate that that would happen.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked why we did not simply accept the recommendations of the Richard report. The Richard report is an extremely valuable contribution to the debate on the development of the Welsh devolution settlement. It was delivered to the Assembly and was read with very considerable interest. It has informed the thinking on the White Paper. Some of the commission's recommendations are contained in the White Paper. For example, the separation between the legislature and the executive in the first stage of the development of the Assembly's legislative power is exactly what the commission recommended.
	What we are looking at in Wales is an evolutionary process. We started well, and we have had six years. It is necessary to confer more powers on the Assembly, and the next stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, says, will be the devolution of primary legislative powers. That can only be done when there is consensus in Wales that the people wish it to happen.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords—

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am sure that many in Wales will welcome the fact that the White Paper provides an opportunity for consultation, the true separation of powers that has been needed since the beginning of devolution and the removal of the absurd dual candidacy opportunity. However, if we all share the aspiration that devolution should evolve a little more quickly than the human species, will the Minister put some flesh on the bones of what he describes in the Statement as the process towards greater legislative powers taking place gradually over a number of years? Does that mean this year, next year, some time, never; or is it intended to accommodate the 2011 target of the Richard commission?
	Will the Minister also explain to the House why, given that the majority of Welsh politicians are comfortable with the idea of proceeding quickly towards greater primary legislative powers and are not afraid of putting that to the people of Wales, Government in London are so afraid of putting it to the people of Wales?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gale for her endorsement of the White Paper. I will put an extremely interesting document—it is headed Bills and Bill provisions which could have been enacted by the Assembly under a new Order in Council—in the Library. It lists a number of Bills that I and various other Members of this House have spent many hours discussing in the Chamber and in Committee. In that list, the noble Baroness will be delighted to see a health improvement and prevention Bill—a smoking ban Bill—so the answer to her question is an emphatic yes.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear explanation of the objects and contents of the Bill. I also thank him for his courtesy in sending to me and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in advance of today's debate, an explanation of the amendments the Government have made to the Bill since its Second Reading in the other place.
	No right-thinking person could be opposed to the prevention of discrimination on the grounds of a person's race, sex, age, religion or disability. That is why my honourable friends welcomed the general concept of the Bill when it was presented to the other place before the election.
	However, I must ask about the timing of the introduction of the Bill in the other place and its reintroduction to your Lordships' House now. An equality and discrimination law review is in hand, and there will be new regulations on age discrimination in October 2006, before the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be in place. Will the Act be in force before the review is completed and how can we be sure at this stage that the review will not conflict with some of the provisions that we are now considering?
	We agree that combining the activities of the commissions that, until now, have had jurisdiction over these matters should make for a more consistent approach, more consistent standards and, where appropriate, more consistent rules of procedure. That is not to say that the proposal has received universal approval. I have received a communication from none other than the Mayor of London—who is not generally regarded as being opposed to the principles of equality. He states:
	"It is regressive to force different equality strands . . . within a single body, which is not independent from government".
	It is rare that I find myself either quoting Ken Livingstone or agreeing in any part. But the lack of total independence is clear in many clauses throughout the Bill.
	As is so often the case, even when there is a broad consensus over objectives, the detail of how those objectives may be achieved needs looking into. We hope that we can improve some of them. The first that I wish to highlight is the provision in Clause 3 that,
	"The Commission shall exercise its functions . . . with a view to the creation of a society in which",
	and so on. We do not believe that it is the function of any unelected quango to create any sort of society or to engage in social engineering. Its "Fundamental duty", as the Explanatory Notes put it, is to enforce the laws laid down by Parliament to create what is ultimately wanted.
	The same clause requires the commission to ensure that,
	"there is mutual respect between communities",
	and so on. I will not read the whole paragraph now. But how can anyone legislate to make one love one's neighbour? At a later stage, I shall invite your Lordships to consider some less high-flown language on the commission's fundamental duty. I shall not take up further time today elaborating on that point.
	I remind noble Lords that almost a year ago the Prime Minister announced the creation of a Women and Work Commission to examine the problem of the gender pay gap, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Later last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer hosted a summit on the same subject. Will the new all-embracing commission advise on those and similar topics, rather than ad hoc overlapping commissions being set up from time to time?
	It is interesting that, despite his warm words about women at work, not only did the Prime Minister in his recent reshuffle forget to appoint a Minister for Women, but, when he realised his mistake, he had run out of funds and the unfortunate Minister, unlike her colleagues, had to work for nothing—never mind about equal pay. Should that not be a matter for the EOC to investigate?
	We support the principle of bringing the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission together under one umbrella. Certainly, there are cases where individuals or groups suffer from discrimination on multiple grounds—race and sex, for example. It is sensible for there to be what several speakers in the other debate described as a one-stop shop. Indeed, we have been lobbied by people who believe that that is very helpful. It is equally sensible for the one-stop shop to operate on one set of standards, one set of rules and one methodology.
	However, that gives rise to my first question. We currently have three commissions, with three able, effective, and, might I say, forceful chairmen. Under Schedule 1, the new commission will consist of between 10 and 15 commissioners, an ex officio chief executive who is also a commissioner, and a chairman, all of whom, apart from the chief executive, are appointed by the Government. It will be impossible for either the chairman or the chief executive to be involved in the day-to-day duties of running what until now have been three full-time, major organisations.
	Leaving aside the fact that the Secretary of State is empowered to appoint "one or more" deputy chairmen, can the Minister say how the Government expect the new commission to operate, even though it will be given power to regulate its own proceedings? It seems as if the Disability Rights Commission has succeeded in persuading the Government to ensure that there is a separate committee to handle its existing functions, while Northern Ireland is to have its own commission.
	At present, there is diverse expertise in the existing commissions in the separate fields of their work. Will the staff of the new commission be expected to be multi-skilled, or will its executives and officials still operate in separate compartments? Will the CEHR be a single committee covering the wide range of the commission's duties or will there be several sub-committees handling day-to-day matters? If the latter is the case, how will the chairman be able to ensure the uniformity of approach, practice and procedure that the Bill, rightly, is intended to promote?
	I now turn to the question of cost. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nods and smiles at me as though he knew that I would raise that. The regulatory impact assessment published by the DTI puts the total budget for the three commissions at about £43.4 million in 2003–04. The start-up costs of what may be described as the new super-commission are reported to be over a staggering £24 million. What will the cost be and how will it be made up? That question was raised by my honourable friend in the other place, but has not been answered so far. The Explanatory Notes simply lump the whole £24 million into four headings, with an average of £6 million each, which is pretty vague. I hope that the Minister has had time to find the answer, but if she still cannot tell us, perhaps she will write to me.
	Then there is the matter of the operating costs of the new super-commission. Again, the Explanatory Notes tell us that the annual funding required is to be increased from the current combined cost of £43 million to £70 million. That is an increase of 63 per cent, which the Government put down to an increase in staffing levels by between 20 and 50 per cent of levels in the present commissions. That is a pretty wide divergence and represents an increase in staff of between l00 and 250 people. Do the Government have any idea of how many extra people will be needed—and why perhaps so many?
	One would have thought that economies would have been made possible by the process of rationalisation, even though new duties will be performed in relation, for example, to religious discrimination. As if that increase is not enough, the Commission for Racial Equality is asking for total funding, not of £70 million, but £120 million. That is about £2 for every man, woman and child of the population. The three existing commissions provided casework support in just under 4,400 cases in 2002 and supported 248 court and tribunal cases the same year. On the basis of the Government's own estimated costs, that represents over £15,000 per case and, if the Commission for Racial Equality's request were approved, that figure would be £26,000.
	Of course I acknowledge that all the commissions disseminate a great deal of useful, good information via their respective websites, which many visit each year. However, I hope that this expansion of staff, where one plus one plus one plus one seems to make five, or even six, will not result in empire building, or, which would be just as bad, generate make-work projects and the chasing of statistical targets where political correctness, rather than common sense, is the order of the day.
	Before I leave the subject of cost, another question arises through an important difference between the Explanatory Notes issued to the other place and the ones accompanying the Bill before your Lordships. The other place was told:
	"The estimate of the annual budget for the CEHR when it is fully operational, which will not be before 2007 and could be later, is £70 million".
	The corresponding paragraph in the Explanatory Notes provided for your Lordships reads that,
	"the annual budget for the CEHR when it is fully operational, encompassing the functions of all three Commissions, is £70 million".
	There is now no reference to the words,
	"2007 and could be later".
	Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is the date on which the Government propose to bring the Act into force, whether there has been a change from the original target date of 2007, and the reason for the change.
	Particularly confusing is the situation vis-à-vis the existing commissions, which can continue until 31 March 2009. What guidance will be given to the commissions about the dates of their respective demises? They clearly need that information for the purposes of forward planning. Is it intended for them all to cease simultaneously, or will they vanish one by one?
	The Federation of Small Businesses has particular concerns about the operation of the new Act. Small businesses, by their very nature, have neither internal personnel departments—human resources as they are usually called—nor access to constant legal advice on some of the complex issues which will be governed by the commission. I would like to hear an assurance that among the duties of the commission will be the need to provide a help line to enable small businesses and others to obtain expert advice on potential problems before they arise or escalate. I refer to an adequately staffed help line, not one playing "Greensleeves" endlessly, interrupted by a voice saying, "Press one", "Press two", or "Your call is important to us".
	One topic to be within the jurisdiction of the commission will be religion or religious belief. This is a subject where, if we are not careful, political correctness and the muzzling of free speech could run rife. I speak as someone who, along with friends and family, has had to put up with a certain amount of religious intolerance over the years. I do not say that in a bad way; it just happens at school and later on. People say things to you that you wish they would not. That kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable, whether it is the Jewish Community, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics or indeed the members of any other genuine faith who are subjected to it. Prejudice against people simply because they are members of a particular faith, or because they are not members of a preferred one, is something that has to be prevented.
	However, I believe that a line has to be drawn between religious intolerance, and genuine criticism of a particular religion or branch of a religion because of doctrinal issues. I do not propose to stir up matters by giving examples. I am certain that your Lordships will be able to think of some if you want. Similarly, a line has to be drawn between reasonable light-hearted banter—the late Dave Allen with his jokes about his Church springs to mind—and the deliberate, persistent taunting of, say, a fellow worker or a neighbour.
	How will these provisions impinge on honest criticism, not of established religions, but of some strange sects with abhorrent practices? How will the new proposals affect genuine campaigns against, say, the Moonies or Scientology? Will they prevent the activities of those who are called on, often by distraught parents, to rescue those who have fallen victim to some form of brain-washing? I trust that the commission and its enhanced staff of up to 750 people will be able to draw those lines and will not come clumping down on people who express views, or even tell jokes in a moderate and non-malicious way.
	The Law Society, in its comments about this Bill, complains that the commission's role in the area of human rights will have no enforcement powers. I for one am glad about that. The work of the super-commission—in all its several aspects—should not include being judge, jury and executioner. It must continue, as hitherto: when all else fails, it should confine itself to bringing matters to the appropriate court or tribunal on its own, or supporting a claimant with a bona fide grievance.
	Still on the subject of human rights, I would like to mention one specific problem which has been drawn to my attention by Help the Aged and Age Concern. In 2002, the judgment in the case of the Leonard Cheshire Homes ruled that the Human Rights Act did not protect those in private care homes. It applies only to publicly operated homes. That is an extremely worrying loophole. More than 90 per cent of those in care homes are in private homes or homes operated by voluntary organisations. Often such places are funded—at least in part—by contributions from a local council. It is vital that the duty of public bodies to protect the human rights of vulnerable people is extended to private providers carrying out public functions.
	I accept that this Bill may not be the best vehicle to address this anomaly, but I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that something will be done to protect the human rights of those in care homes. This is particularly important in view of the fact that age is to be one of the strands drawn into the new commission. We would not like to see it lost beneath the louder voices of the existing commissions. There are other problems concerning ageism, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will be telling us later in the debate.
	I agree with the Law Society in their plea for a single Equality Bill to be introduced, as promised in the Labour Party manifesto. It is becoming increasingly difficult for lawyers and other professionals involved in this area, let alone lay members of the public, to find their way through the existing tangle of piecemeal legislation.
	There may be a manpower problem among parliamentary draftsmen who are snowed under with the Government's mountain of proposed legislation. If that is the reason why certain matters are not getting through, I suggest that outsourcing to some of the larger firms of solicitors or senior barristers could solve the problem.
	Finally, no doubt many of your Lordships have received the same brief as I did from Age Concern, and here I have to declare an interest; namely, that I am not as young as I used to be. Age Concern points out that anti-ageism law in the workplace will be in force by the autumn of next year, and it will be up to the new commission to see that it is complied with. But as I pointed out earlier, we do not know for sure when the new commission will be fully functional.
	It is not just in the area of employment that older people are discriminated against—except in your Lordships' House. They are discriminated against in healthcare, the inability to apply for disability living allowance or grants from the Independent Living Fund. In those instances it is the miserly hand of the Treasury that I believe is to blame, and it is something that the Government could rectify at a stroke of the Chancellor's pen. I trust that the new commission, despite being on the Government's payroll, and subject to directions from the Government, will try to do something about those inequalities, as well as the discrimination against older citizens by insurance companies, which is a constant source of complaint.
	I have mentioned the commission's lack of complete independence from the Government. The commission is subject in certain places to the direction of the Secretary of State. Which Secretary of State? The existing commissions are under the jurisdiction of four different departments and hence four different Secretaries of State. If no man can serve two masters, how can one commission serve four? May we please be informed whether one single department is to be responsible for the commission, and if so, which one?
	I repeat that in principle we support the concept of the Bill. There are aspects of the detail that we most certainly will want to consider, but I believe that we shall do it in a constructive manner. For the moment, we concur with the Motion that the Bill be read a second time.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we warmly welcome not just the concept of the Bill but also the Bill itself. We will work constructively to secure its safe passage. We hope to persuade the Government to improve it in some ways but to resist the temptation to table a plethora of amendments. We will concentrate only on what we regard as essential to achieve the Bill's important objectives. In particular, it is not sensible to seek to amend the Bill to fill gaps that can be filled coherently only when the single equality Bill is introduced.
	I mention that at the outset because there has been an avalanche of briefings from the many special interest groups and the equality agencies, making a variety of useful and normally sensible points. Except for purposes of clarification, we should take up only those matters that need to be dealt with in this Bill rather than in the wider equality Bill. By a wider equality Bill, I mean one that brings together all the different strands of unlawful discrimination legislation, fills in gaps, removes inconsistencies, levels up protection and produces a coherent, comprehensive and user-friendly scheme.
	As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, left to ourselves, we on these Benches would not have legislated first to create a Commission for Equality and Human Rights and then to reform the substance of equality law. The new commission will have a formidable set of responsibilities and will not be helped from the outset by the need to operate a mass of opaque, inconsistent and incomplete equality legislation, some of which will be in statutes, some in regulations, some in EU legislation and some in case law. But, for reasons that we understand, so powerfully explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, the Government decided to proceed first with the commission and some piecemeal changes dealing with religion and belief, and the gender duty. We must make the best of it until we have the larger reforming measure. On that point, will the Minister inform the House on the progress made on the discrimination law review?
	I, too, have interests to declare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which reported extensively on this subject. I was also an architect of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act in the mid-1970s. It is a particular pleasure to participate in this debate with the first chair and deputy chair of the EOC, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Howe of Idlicote, who have such great experience in that field, as have so many others concerned with various strands covered by the Bill.
	My single equality Bill was approved by the House two years ago. It was based on the recommendations of the Hepple report. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to chair the meeting that launched the comprehensive and authoritative report by Professor Sir Robert Hepple and his team, reviewing the existing anti-discrimination legislation and proposing legislative reforms. That report, and perhaps my Bill, may assist the Government when they construct the single equality Bill promised in new Labour's recent election manifesto and long advocated by my party.
	We are very glad that the Department for Constitutional Affairs, with a very powerful ministerial team, has lead responsibility for the Bill. When I worked in the Wilson administration with Roy Jenkins, we had the great advantage that a heavyweight Cabinet Minister with a clear manifesto mandate had overall responsibility both for gender and race discrimination legislation. Thirty years on, the position has become much more complicated and responsibility for developing equality and human rights policy is shared by at least five government departments. In my view, it would enhance the preparation of the single equality Bill if the same powerful ministerial team and its expert advisers were given lead responsibility for the present Bill and the single equality Bill.
	We especially welcome the fact that there will be a single body to tackle the different forms of unlawful discrimination. Whatever the Mayor of London may say, it makes no sense to proliferate more and more commissions to deal with different forms of discrimination. A black and disabled woman who believes herself to be the victim of discrimination, perhaps on several grounds, should be able to go to a one-stop shop instead of three or more different shops. A single equality commission will encourage an overarching and strategic approach to the principle of equal treatment without discrimination, bringing together the different strands and avoiding wasteful duplication.
	To the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, I say that I do not believe that there will be wasteful duplication. One of the great merits of these reforms is that they will avoid it—for example, having lots of lawyers and commissions makes no sense. The Government are to be commended for having resisted the calls from some to retain and add to the existing commissions or to create internal structures likely to encourage divisions rather than cohesion.
	An equality and human rights commission should ensure that equality becomes better understood as a fundamental human right to be enjoyed together with other human rights, civil and political, and economic and social. It should be able to promote a culture of human rights and to investigate abuses. Such a commission was envisaged a decade ago in the Cook-Maclennan commission agreement. The case for such a human rights commission was carefully examined by the JCHR. We welcome the Government's acceptance of that case. It would be churlish—I hope that I am never churlish—to complain that it has taken more than a decade and that we shall have to wait for several more years before we have a comprehensive and workable statutory scheme, but it should be worth the wait.
	We strongly believe that the new commission should be a constitutional watchdog, a strategic law enforcer and a promoter of good practice and public education. We regard it as essential that it will be independent of government and seen to be independent in the way in which its members are appointed and how it is funded. It should not be subject to ministerial direction or dictation. Ultimately, the commission should be accountable to Parliament.
	The JCHR has been imaginative in suggesting ways in which that might be done. In our eleventh report of 2003 we considered the different models and were convinced that the commission should not be a standard non-department public body, but should have the character of a constitutional watchdog, such as the National Audit Office, the Electoral Commission or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. We came back to that in our sixteenth report for 2004–05. We look to Ministers to bring forward amendments to achieve that, given the importance which the existing equality agencies and many others attach to independence.
	The JCHR has repeatedly made it clear that it is also incompatible with the commission's independent status that it should be subject to ministerial direction or dictation regarding inquiries or investigations. Of course it should be open to a Minister to request the commission to undertake an inquiry, but not to require an investigation. The same applies to other provisions which give Ministers unnecessary powers of direction.
	It is also essential that the commission is professionally staffed and that it has sufficient resources to carry out the formidably wide range of tasks for which it will be responsible; that is, tackling unlawful discrimination and breaches of human rights, and treating strategic law enforcement as a high priority. The commission will need to give equal protection to victims of all types of unlawful discrimination and to avoid creating separate, competing internal departments. Although I was forced to make that concession with my Bill, I regret that that has already happened in relation to disability, but I understand why. I certainly would oppose the creation of similar committees to deal with the other strands, which would simply lead to a lack of cohesion.
	The choice of the first chair, the commissioners and the appointment of senior staff will be crucially important. People matter at least as much as institutional architecture. It is vital that this should be a genuinely new commission, making a fresh start and not carrying too much baggage from the past. Another condition for our support is to ensure that the commission has sufficient legal powers. That includes the power to tackle persistent discrimination and to tackle directly as well as indirectly discriminatory practices. That is where the existing legislation contains unnecessary restrictions. The Bill appears to omit those necessary powers. The Government have given an assurance that the commission's existing powers will not be reduced. In that respect, the Bill appears to reduce existing powers instead of strengthening them. We need to be sure that the commission's existing powers to assist claimants are also not reduced.
	We accept that the commission should not be given responsibility for supporting individual cases claiming breaches of the Human Rights Act, but we do not accept that the commission should be toothless when tackling human rights abuses. It should at least be able to institute judicial review proceedings where it is in the public interest to seek a declaration that a particular practice, procedure or rule operates in breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act.
	The EOC and the CRE have the power to use judicial review in this way. From my personal experience on their behalf, it has proved to be one of the most effective, cost-effective and proportionate ways of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor well knows, there are strong safeguards to ensure that judicial review is not used without good cause and that the remedies are discretionary.
	It is not acceptable that the commission will have this power only when dealing with discrimination and not when dealing with other breaches of human rights. We attach great importance to that because otherwise this will be a very lopsided body with strong enforcement powers for discrimination but none at all for human rights. This proposal seems to the JCHR to be the most modest one that we could put forward, falling well short of more draconian powers. The JCHR noted that without the power to seek judicial review under the Human Rights Act the commission "will be neutered". An amendment is needed to Clause 32(3)(c) to achieve this, while leaving the victim test in Section 7 of the Human Rights Act otherwise intact.
	The commission's human rights mandate needs to include not only the European Convention on Human Rights but also the other international human rights treaties by which the UK is bound. The JCHR has interpreted its mandate in this way, using the wider treaties, and it is important for the commission not to be blinkered but to be able to do so as well.
	I have concentrated on the commission because of the importance of ensuring its effectiveness from the outset. We also need carefully to consider the more swampy territory in Part 2, which deals with discrimination on grounds of religion or belief beyond the employment field. Part 2 contains some controversial provisions and exceptions, and the JCHR identified some significant anomalies.
	One of the good things in Part 2 is that the Government have not simply copied over race into religion when it comes to the civil wrong of harassment and one is dealing with goods, services and facilities. I believe that the Government have not done so because of free speech and that they were worried that, for example, in selling a book an inflammatory poster in a bookshop might lead to suggestions of unlawful harassment. I shall deal with this matter in another debate in several months' time, but I wish the Government would do the same in relation to crime, and not simply copy over race with no modification into religion. So the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may wish to know that the Bill has been more sensitive on free speech than the criminal Bill.
	Many of the agencies that have lobbied have, understandably, sought the extension of the protection of Part 2 beyond religion and belief to cover sexual orientation and age. That would be beyond the long title as it stands. We on these Benches wish it to be extended in that way, and we will need assurances that it will be, either in this Bill or in the wider Bill.
	Part 3 imposes a duty on public authorities to promote gender equality. That is also most welcome as it matches the duty in the field of race. But it is regrettable that the opportunity has not been taken to extend the positive duty to other strands. My Bill recognised that it cannot be done in exactly the same way for each strand for reasons of personal privacy. One cannot apply exactly the same duty in relation to sexuality and religion as one can in relation to other kinds of discrimination. But can the Minister confirm that this will be taken care of, either now or hereafter?
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to unequal pay for equal work. Can the Minister confirm—it was not confirmed in the debate in the other place when Vera Baird, MP, asked the question—that public bodies will be tackling unlawful pay discrimination on the grounds of gender, as well as other aspects of discrimination? In other words, can she confirm that the positive duty will cover unequal pay as well as other matters? I am sure that it will, but we need some assurance.
	It is also important that the gender duty includes harassment to bring it into line with the disability duty because there is an unnecessary inconsistency.
	I am sorry to have taken so long but I shall conclude with one other point. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly referred to it. I agree that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of a "public authority" has been too narrow. Again, the JCHR produced a convincing report explaining why. In a powerful lecture last week, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, expressed his agreement with the view taken by the JCHR. In my view, the answer is to get a test case before the Law Lords in which the Government indicate that a broader interpretation is needed. We do not want what we have, for other reasons, in the Freedom of Information Act, which is page after page listing public authorities instead of a flexible and general definition. I agree that this is an important issue but I do not think that it should be dealt with by an amendment to the Bill. It should be dealt with by the judges in an appropriate case, and soon.
	To conclude, we greatly welcome the Bill and look forward to working closely with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, during its passage through this House.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I echo the tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the great contribution made in recent years by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission.
	The Equality Bill has two major parts and I shall speak to both of them. I shall speak first to the proposed commission. In the process of consultation that led up to the proposed commission on equality and human rights, we in the Church of England have emphasised our strong support for creating a legal framework to safeguard basic rights and to promote dignity, equality and fairness for all members of society.
	For Christians that understanding of equality is derived from our belief that all human beings are created in the image of God and our beliefs about the justice of God and His action in the world. We therefore support the vision set out in Clause 3 for a fairer, more inclusive society that celebrates diversity. We believe that the diversity of Christian belief and commitment can play a major role in contributing to such a vision. We also recognise that the law can help to influence attitudes positively by formulating enforceable rights and proscribing what is clearly wrong.
	Anti-discrimination legislation in the fields of race, gender and disability has been working to this end over the past quarter of a century. We would not want to see any reduction in the advances that have been made in those fields. We believe that progress can also be made in three more recent strands of anti-discrimination regulation that will come into force by the end of 2006.
	Having one body to turn to for advice—the "one-stop shop"—has real advantages for individuals and groups who believe that they are experiencing discrimination, whether single or multiple, and for employers seeking to put equal rights procedures and policies in place in a coherent and consistent way. With a proper structure, a single body could reduce some of the bureaucratic and overheads costs. It could also tackle issues of multiple discrimination.
	I highlight a concern that will apply to the single commission, hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It will be important to ensure that the commission has no loss of focus on the individual strands and no artificially homogenised approach.
	While there may be some common principles—race, gender, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation—each raises its own distinct issues in relation to tackling discrimination and to human rights. Therefore, it is not axiomatic, for example, that identical investigation and enforcement powers are needed for each. "Strand specific" expertise with the capacity to handle issues that cut across two, three or more strands will be needed at a national level. A similar pattern of expertise will be needed at regional and local levels.
	Discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and disability has been well defined by well established United Kingdom legislation and enforcement by the respective commissions.
	One of the tensions for the new commission to face is the disparity between that experience, those ways of working and the situation of the new strands—religion and belief, sexual orientation and age—which lack any case law and will have to develop their own track record. They will also require the right expertise and opportunity to build experience and methods of working so that they are not subsumed into the systems and the cultures of that which already exists.
	We are particularly concerned at the distinction that is becomingly commonly accepted between "religion" and "belief". Both terms are notoriously difficult to define in practice, but it is important to recognise that religion is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and not to slip too easily into a sharp distinction between "religion" and "belief". For people of faith the two overlap. Those of faith and non-faith have belief systems that are important to them and to their communities and have consequences for society. Among the challenges facing those addressing non-discrimination and human rights in the areas of religion and belief will be the capacity to enter into the diverse range of religion and belief in this country and to apply and provide guidance for the implementation of the regulations and the development of good practice.
	A further challenge to the commission will be how it handles and balances the range of rights protected by the Human Rights Act. In particular, I draw attention to the need to ensure that guidance and good practice is consistent with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That recognises that religious groups and faiths have rights to order their lives and communities according to their beliefs and doctrines, which is an aspect of human rights legislation that can easily be overlooked in the understandable and right emphasis on individual rights.
	Arguably one of the benefits of a single equality and human rights body, the commission, is that it will be better equipped to ensure a more informed dialogue and action about the necessary balancing of conflicting human rights.
	I turn briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, describes as the "swampy area" of Part 2 and the proposals to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief in the provision of goods, services, facilities and premises. We are grateful for the helpful dialogue the Government have had with Churches and other faith communities on Part 2 of the Bill. Here the Government's concern for diversity has led to the inclusion of special exemptions to give space to Christians and other people of faith to pursue their beliefs and to make their particular and, I believe, highly significant contributions to society through their institutions, schools, charities and organisations, and, indeed, their premises. It is important that the application of provisions designed to protect people of faith and belief do not in practice make life more complex and difficult for them.
	There are detailed points to make in support of the exemptions. That may be necessary in Committee, but in this general debate I emphasise the importance of the principle of giving space to faith and belief groups to make their contribution in these areas to the diverse but equal society that the Government are encouraging through the Bill.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot resist telling your Lordships that the other day I went to have tea in the Dining Room and took with me a copy of the Equality Bill. One noble Lord, who seemed to have a rather jaundiced sense of humour, said how odd it was to see an earl taking an interest in equality. I thought that there was equality in misery and therefore I had better find out about it. So I did.
	It is always fun and such a pleasure to congratulate the Government—especially the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is not in his place at the moment—on getting something right and on doing the right thing. I always love doing that. The trouble is that there are so few occasions on which it is possible to do so. I may be an odd ball in the debate so far, but I have found little cause to congratulate the Government on the Bill and its contents.
	Of course one understands the reasons and the purposes behind the Bill, but one wonders whether there are no limits to the ingenuity of government and civil servants to conjure up things on which to legislate. I just wish that the Government would sometimes understand that people do not want more legislation; they want less. By its very nature, legislation means, "You must not do", and it usually means, "And we will set up bodies to ensure that you will not do that which you would otherwise have done". Intrinsically, therefore, I do not warm to the Bill, despite the noble and learned Lord's enthusiastic introduction of it, when he made out that it was a wonderful, humane and socially desirable Bill.
	Of course, no one approves of persecution or offensiveness, but I warm to the Bill even less when it proposes to amalgamate three bodies—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission—that together have a budget of £48 million and will be replaced by a new body—the Commission for Equality and Human Rights—that will have a budget of £70 million. I would have expected amalgamation to have resulted in savings but not so in government departments—there is double the cost. Money apparently means nothing to the Government. "Ah", the Government will say, "the body is taking on new powers over religion, sexual orientation and age, and that means more cost". However, I question whether we really want some new monster body to take on powers over those areas of our lives.
	What will the new body do? One need only look at Clause 3, to which my noble friend Lady Miller referred, and with which the right reverend Prelate, much to my surprise, found that he was so much in agreement. Clause 3 says that the commission will have a "fundamental duty". It states:
	"The Commission shall exercise its functions . . . with a view to the creation of a society"
	in which there will be various things, including respect for, among other things,
	"the dignity and worth of each individual".
	That will be written down in law. How can a court or a judge decide the dignity or worth of an individual? That may be fine in a sixth-form essay, where some bright-eyed youth is trying to display the enormity of his intellect, but not as part of the law of the country, if a person could find himself in a court of law. What is this "fundamental duty"? Such an expression has never appeared in British law before, but it has all the echoes of the totalitarian regimes of Russia and China.
	Do we want a great big quango to create a society? That is a huge power. We individuals are to be moulded like dough into a shape that some commission wants. Even if the underlying sentiments of the Bill were worthy—I do not think that they are—the creation of a public body whose duty is to mould our society and therefore our people in a way that that body wants is a monstrous power. The Government may say that people need to be pulled up a bit sharp if they are conducting themselves contrary to the best interests of society. That may be so, but who will be the members of this commission? It will not be the Archangel Gabriel and his merry men. It will doubtless be people who have applied to some other body and who will be entered on a list and subsequently picked or more likely just approved by some Minister. As the commission must be fully conversant with those bodies that feel themselves repressed and inadequately treated in the race of life, doubtless it will have to include a number of those representatives. Of course, they will all be paid.
	This is sinister stuff. Your Lordships may well recall the fear that we all had in the 1950s of communism—the fear that Big Brother was watching you. So he was, watching over and ordering the lives of those in Russia. We fought intellectually, philosophically and politically against that ever happening in this country. but that is exactly what is happening in this country. We do not call it communism. It masquerades under the name of democracy. A member of the Rural Payments Agency, for example, can deny a farmer subsidy because the official may find that a heavy piece of machinery in a field is destroying the soil structure, as if the official knows more about the soil structure than does the farmer.
	A hospital such as the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children can be obliged to close its wards because it has done too many operations and has exceeded the Government's target. If you go into central London, a satellite in the sky will home in on your vehicle and, if you have not paid your congestion charge, you are for it. Now the Secretary of State for Education and Skills wants children to stay at school until late in the evening, thereby allowing the state to take over from parents the duty, pleasure and right of bringing up their children in their way. So it goes on: the examples are endless. Big Brother is watching us all the time.
	However reasonable an argument may be in any particular case, in every way the individual is made more and more to subordinate himself or herself to the state. Now we have this proposed new commission being given huge powers. It will be able to do anything that it likes to pursue its anti-discrimination legislation. There is no complaints procedure. There will be no ombudsman to control it, and it will be virtually immune from judicial review.
	The commission has a duty to create mutual respect between communities. One may be able to tolerate the views of others, but saying that you have to respect them puts it all into a different category altogether. Christians, for example, may not like Satanists in their community. They may be able to tolerate them, but that does not mean to say that they will respect them. To be told by law that they must respect them is as impossible as it is deeply offensive.
	Then of course the commission will have huge powers to back legal action by a supposedly oppressed person. That may seem fine in principle, but it can have a devastating and undermining effect on justice. If, for example, an atheist were to stay in a hotel and found a copy of the Bible by his bed, he could complain to the commission that the hotel was discriminating against him and his views. Were such a complaint to be backed by the commission, it would cost the complainant nothing, but it would be hugely expensive for the hotel to resist in court. The simplest answer for the hotel would be to say, "Let us remove the Bible from the rooms and have no fuss". Where is the justice there? Far from there being no justice, there is a substantial injustice. Action is being taken against something that is perfectly legal, and the action is backed by the heavy weight of public finance. That will result in free and legal behaviour being threatened or expunged.
	Barnabas House is a refuge for young people and was set up in King's Lynn in my county of Norfolk by the Baptist Church. It was told that it stood to lose its funding from Norfolk County Council because grace was said before meals and Bibles were placed in the rooms. All advertising for Christian events was inappropriate. The hostel was set up by a church. Why should it not conduct itself in the way that it wishes? Who is to say that such people should not conduct themselves in the way that they wish and that the grant will be removed? Local officials. Of what organisation? Believe it or not, they were from the government body that runs under that dreadful wacky name of "supporting people". There was not much supporting of people there.
	There was a compromise. The hostel could keep its grant if it kept the religion "low key". What does that mean? How do you keep a religion "low key"? The hostel can keep its Bibles, but people must not say grace before meals. That is what is imposed on people by officials. Last month, there was a row because an education authority wanted to ban the mention of the Holy Ghost because it was considered to be spooky. That is an intolerable interference by authority, whether local or national. Officials have no right to dictate, using the bludgeon of money to get their way, and individuals have no right to be trodden over in that way. That is what is happening before this new monster body, with its new monster powers of having a fundamental duty to create the type of society that it wants, comes into effect. It is no wonder that people are deeply apprehensive of the Bill.
	The Government ought to encourage—and ought to encourage their officials to encourage—organisations that help, guide and rescue people. Money—government money—is a powerful weapon. The Government should see that it is handled with care and understanding, not dictatorially.
	Which department is to be responsible for the Bill? It will be not one body, not two, not three, but four—the DTI, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions. Where is the commonality of thought there?
	Far from creating a human, contented and equal society, the Bill will produce a society in which there is antagonism, aggression and fear. Of course, that it is not its intention, but I think that that will be result. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Government wanted to build a truly equal society, but equality can produce drabness, uniformity, dullness and lack of enterprise. I remind your Lordships of what the late Lord Hailsham said so well in his book The Dilemma of Democracy:
	"in a democracy in which uniformity is not the aim, and diversity is encouraged, each man and woman is free to join a restricted group in which he can excel and offer service. Such groups are not class conscious examples of social or intellectual or aesthetic snobbery. They are the salt of the earth. They are the church workers, the youth leaders, the club secretaries, the trade union officials, the welfare officers, the pigeon fanciers, the Scouters, the allotment holders, the members of residents' associations, the Salvation Army Captains, the exponents of almost every free activity you choose to mention, that is except the things which mean drabness, boredom, cynicism, non-involvement in society, and mediocrity in all things".

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I should like to add my appreciation to that of others in welcoming the Bill. As someone from both a racial and a faith minority, as well as being a woman, I have considerable experience of the discrimination and equality debate. I can assure the Minister that there are many from my background who wish the Bill safe passage in the months to come.
	First, I add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Lester and others who have expressed regret that we have not seen a single equality Act precede the establishment of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Introducing a single equality Act would have been more logical in terms of pulling together the various strands of legislation dealing with equality and discrimination. Stonewall points out that some 35 Acts, 52 statutory instruments, 13 codes of practice, three codes of guidance and 16 European directives and recommendations apply to equality law. It makes the point that Britain's 3.4 million lesbian, gay and bisexual people still do not benefit from the public duty to promote equality. Indeed, that group still has no statutory protection from discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, which is regrettable.
	I know that the Government are committed to introducing an Act. Will the Minister give us an indication of when she envisages this happening? I am conscious that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has mentioned that it will happen in this Parliament, but could we enter a plea for it to be sooner rather than later?
	The Bill breaks considerable new ground in many areas, and so it should. Putting a human rights agency on a regulatory footing is a most useful development, as it will, particularly in its awareness-raising role, change the human rights culture of this country. The incorporation of responsibility for promoting equality and combating unlawful discrimination in relation to age and sexual orientation is also most helpful, and will go some way to redressing the existing gaps. I also broadly welcome the inclusion of religion or belief in this category in general terms, but expect to go into greater detail in Committee into some of the provisions.
	There is also the issue of timing. I am familiar with the arguments put by the Commission for Racial Equality for a phased entry, with its responsibilities transferring to the commission in 2009. However, I have not found any reference to that date in the Bill and wonder whether its inclusion might be helpful in signalling more directly the remaining shelf life of the CRE.
	Like many speakers before me, I wish to highlight the issue of independence for the commission. Discrimination takes myriad forms and can have serious consequences for the individuals concerned. Often this discrimination is caused by the acts of state or its agents, as is the perception of Muslims in terms of the use of some laws after 9/11—hence the very regulatory protections we are talking about today. So, for the delivery of remedy from discrimination, it becomes all the more important that the authority responsible be independent. When the Secretary of State has powers to direct a regulatory body such as the commission, that not only affects its freedom to act to the contrary in rare cases but also imposes financial obligations for which it may not have the resources or to which it may not assign the same priorities.
	With respect to financial resources, the Commission for Racial Equality, Liberty and several other groups with long experience in these matters have highlighted two pertinent points. First, there must be sufficient resources from public funds to ensure full and effective implementation of current obligations. Secondly, there must be generous funding for the commission's role in promoting knowledge and awareness of rights and responsibilities and carrying out its duty to enforce these rights, as set out in Clauses 8 to 11.
	While many of us are pleased that there will be a duty to promote an understanding of these areas and particularly welcome the new role for the promotion of the human rights culture, we also recognise that this menu comes with a bill, and that it is likely to be higher than the £70 million currently envisaged.
	There has been much talk on the Conservative Benches of the cost of the commission. My view is that for the many millions of us who have direct experience of discrimination, £70 million—a little more than £1 per head of population—is a very low price to pay for social cohesion and tolerance. The establishment of the commission will rightly raise expectations, and it will be an opportunity lost if the body is unable to deliver its wide mandate for a lack of funds.
	I turn briefly to Clause 11, which deals with communities. In my new role as spokesman from these Benches on communities and local government, I have been intrigued to see how the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister defines the community part of the role. I am afraid that I have not been able to fathom very much, other than to observe that community, and a sense of belonging to one, can be very different from one individual to the next, and indeed mean different things in different contexts. I am therefore somewhat wary of aspects of Clause 11.
	The importance of good relations between and within communities is axiomatic and beyond dispute; what is troubling is the tone and wording of this clause, as it seems to attempt to legislate for "respect"—in plain English. A particularly troubling aspect is subsection (2), which defines community in that it impinges on an individual's self-definition of his or her own identity. As one coming from an intellectual position in which human agency and autonomy lie with the individual to a large extent, I am troubled by the tone of this clause. I suspect that instilling respect and tolerance of pluralism will call for more than the approach evidenced in this Bill.
	Finally, I turn to those aspects of the Bill that deal with religion and belief. I broadly welcome the new emphases in dealing with discrimination in that area. For communities that are disadvantaged, equality of treatment in the economic, social and cultural aspects of life is essential. That is why I believe that dealing with those aspects in Part 2 of the Bill is preferable to, and more appropriate in providing protection against religious intolerance, than the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
	However, returning to this Bill, I have some concerns with regards exceptions in Clause 52. When you tread into the nebulous area of belief and its relationship to law, you need to tread carefully. So while I understand the intention behind the thinking in how religion and belief are dealt with in this Bill, I suspect that we shall have to revisit those areas in Committee.
	In concluding, I hope that this most useful Bill makes good progress, and I look forward to working constructively with Ministers to achieve the ends that we all look forward to in enhancing equality.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on disability. His work on disability is very well-known. He certainly carries the torch for those with a learning disability, and carries it very well.
	I begin by paying tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for his presentation of the Bill which was a model of clarity. The House should now fully understand what it involves.
	I warmly commend and welcome the Bill which constitutes one more hammer in the battle against discrimination and for increasing human rights. The aim is equality—no matter that that has been denigrated by some people—which we are all trying to achieve with this legislation. I believe that this Bill can usher in a new age of human rights which transforms the opportunities of millions of people.
	Notwithstanding any caricature of the Bill that we have heard today, it is a marvellous, forward looking Bill which can have a great effect on the relevant people, by whom I mean those people lacking human rights. However, the proposed new single Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which is admirable in every way, needs decisively to reject the concept of a "light touch" and to pursue human rights vigorously. That light touch has been suggested in various quarters. It would be the death of the commission if it tried to operate with a light touch. What we really need is a strong, firm commission that is determined to eradicate abuses and discrimination and to further human rights. That is its objective but it will achieve that only if it is tough and there is no nonsense about adopting a light touch.
	My particular concern is provision for disabled people as the new commission created by the Bill will take over the disability rights remit of the Disability Rights Commission. The work of the Disability Rights Commission is very well-known and admired. I pay warm tribute to its chairman, Bert Massie, the chief executive, Bob Niven, and the various experts who help us so much and who carry forward the field work, such as Agnes Fletcher and Caroline Ellis. Their work has been outstanding and I think it is of vital importance that we retain them and their expertise in the new body. To fail to do so would be a lamentable waste of great skill and expertise.
	Britain's 10 million disabled people will be looking to the new commission to defend and extend their rights. Now that the Disability Committee is to be charged with driving forward the work on disability rights, they will have a clear voice and powers. That is what we have been seeking. After all, disability is at its heart a human rights issue.
	These advances will be an enormous fillip to the next major objective of disabled people—independent living. Certainly, the three "pillars"—equality, human rights and good community relations—will cumulatively help to establish clear, new rights.
	But although the existence of the Disability Committee is to be reviewed after five years, the Bill refers only to the review to recommend how long the committee should continue to exist and it provides only for the Secretary of State to dissolve the committee in the light of the review. This has raised fears among disabled people that the review would not be open and objective. It would be far better if the Bill provided for an open-ended review. Personally, I think that the committee should be permanent—or last as long as the CEHR exists—but at least the Government should agree to an open-ended review. If not, I intend to propose amendments at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that the Government will attend to that point if they can.
	In those amendments I think that it would be desirable to incorporate a requirement that when the Disability Committee is reviewed, disabled people and their representatives must clearly be among the persons whose views are to be taken into account. The present provisions in the Bill simply require those conducting the review to consult persons who they think are likely to have an interest. Although that would make it likely that disabled people would be consulted, it does not make it definite—and definite commitments are what Bills are all about.
	The Bill provides that the term of the transitional commissioner will cease when the Disability Committee comes into operation. But the same provisions do not apply to the EOC or to the CRE. Their transitional commissioners remain unaffected. It does not make sense or logic to torpedo the disability transitional commissioner and leave the others sacrosanct until 2009 and 2011. I hope that the Minister will be able to alter the arrangement to the benefit of the disability transitional commissioner.
	I am also concerned about the lack of enforcement powers of the new commission for human rights. Far from being a monster with monstrous powers, the commission reveals the weakness of the Bill in that the new commission will have only limited enforcement powers in relation to human rights.
	The provisions of the Bill may well have been misunderstood by some people who say that the commission has no enforcement powers at all. In fact, it has full enforcement powers as regards the DDA and other equality enactments, including the power to assist individuals in bringing cases. But its limited enforcement powers on human rights is a cause for deep concern, and many will find that unacceptable. The fact that the CEHR cannot support and fund individuals to bring human rights cases weakens the whole structure and certainly weakens the CEHR. Why should it be deprived of power to provide legal assistance on representation for stand-alone human rights cases?
	My noble friend the Minister will know that on disability there is a specific provision in the Bill which is carried over from the DRC Act, which, if activated, would allow the CEHR to support individual disabled people with cases under the Human Rights Act. That would be very valuable. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister—and I would appreciate an answer when she winds up—how about that? Is it possible to activate that provision?
	I believe that the changes I propose will improve an already admirable Bill—and I hope to make the good better. But while we have a league table of legal equality, this Bill simply must be underpinned by a single equalities Act. Otherwise, when this Bill becomes an Act it will have great difficulty in operating with different equality legislation providing different degrees of protection for different people.
	It has already been mentioned that there are some 30 Acts of Parliament, endless statutory instruments, codes of practice, directives and recommendations which make it difficult for anyone to know where they stand. Some people have more rights than others and it is still legal to discriminate against some groups but not others. Key terms are defined differently in different Acts. That needs attending to. The only way to do that is with a single equalities Act. I know that work is proceeding on the Equalities Review—chaired by Trevor Phillips—and on the Government's Discrimination Law Review, but we need urgent action to move forward to a single equalities Act. I was glad to see my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer say in his opening speech that the Government are committed to a single equalities Act, and I hope that it will be pursued as quickly as possible.
	This ambitious Bill deserves warm support, because it constitutes a major step forward on human rights. It can become one of the great landmark legislative Acts dealing with human freedom, independence and equality. If when it becomes law it is accompanied by a single equalities Act, we shall have comprehensive legislation of which we can all be proud.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, this widely welcomed Bill has been a long time in gestation. It has been the subject of much activity and thought on the part of the organisations, both statutory and voluntary, whose clients will be most affected by it and which have been in close consultation with the Government.
	I welcome the Bill's broad thrust, as vigorously presented by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in the early part of his speech. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in replying will respond carefully to the points made in the House during the debate. It is clear that there are still parts of the Bill that cause concern outside Parliament.
	I want to concentrate on two main topics that concern a number of different groups and organisations. First, the changes to substantive equality law made in the Bill, and their limitations; and, secondly, uneasiness about the problems attending on the transition arrangements as the existing commissions wind down and the CEHR comes into being.
	I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made in your Lordships' House about the cart-before-horse way in which the Government have decided to approach the problem of persistent inequalities in our society. In any case, Clause 3 creates a brief but impressive vision of the society that we wish to create. I am grateful for that, as are many others.
	The broad duties of the CEHR as defined in Clause 8 are also welcome. I know that some members of your Lordships' House do not agree with that approach; in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave a typically spirited account of his disapproval in detail. The noble Earl was the first Minister against whom I had to sharpen my powers and I have never underrated him from that moment to this. I shall read his speech with interest when it has been printed because I think that it will contain remarks that are relevant to our concerns.
	Some important extensions to existing anti-discrimination law are made in the Bill. The first is the long-awaited—many would say long-overdue— inclusion of a duty on public bodies to promote gender equality. The EOC has worked long and hard on that matter, but it still has some residual concerns about what it describes as the most radical change in sex equality law in 30 years.
	The first matter of concern is the definition of public authority in Part 3. There is a fear that the difference between the wording of that definition and the wording of the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act—the DDA—could be considered significant by the courts. Will the Minister reassure us that despite the differences in wording the definition in the Bill should be read as being the same as that in the Disability Discrimination Act—or will she undertake to change the Bill's wording?
	Secondly, I want to support the remarks and questions put to the Minister on harassment and protection of transgender persons made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, whose prestige in that world is without equal. Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that the gender duty will enable public sector bodies to look at the causes of the pay gap, such as the concentration of women in lower-paid occupations? Will the duty enable public sector bodies to use contract compliance procedures to persuade contractors to move towards equal pay for men and women?
	Finally, there is the question of further statutory protection for groups of people who currently lack it. Stonewall, the EOC and other groups have welcomed the inclusion in the Bill of protection against discrimination in the provision of goods and services on grounds of religion and belief. I will not go into that area, as it will affect our debate at a future stage.
	However, they also point out that there is still no such legal protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and transexuality. Yet evidence of such discrimination is not far to seek and can impact in a damaging way on individuals in many areas of their daily lives.
	We are all aware that the Government are engaged in a process that should result eventually in a single Equality Act, but there seems little certainty about the timeframe for that process or even for the discrimination law review that precedes it. Is it the Government's intention not to legislate for that large group before the introduction of a single Equality Act, which might not appear for another two or three years? If so, the Minister may be faced with amendments at a later stage.
	I turn to the transition problems. The Minister may say, possibly rightly, that the detail of those cannot form part of the Bill. Nevertheless, there are some important concerns surrounding the process of keeping the existing commissions on the road and functioning effectively while preparations are being made to create their successor body, which is expected to be operational from late 2007.
	The coverage of anti-discrimination legislation will increase with the Bill's passage, perhaps further than the Government anticipated. We shall see. In 2006 protection against discrimination on the grounds of age will be on-stream, but how and by whom will those new legal provisions be administered, given that the existing commissions will be in their dying days?
	What reassurance can the Government give that employees will be offered the chance to contract their experience and expertise to the CEHR? After all, as the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Southwell pointed out, experience and expertise in the individual strands will still be required in the new commission.
	Finally, will the full force of the TUPE regulations apply fully to those employees who do not or are unable to obtain ongoing employment at the commission?
	The Bill says quite a lot about the appointment of the new commissioners, including a reference to them being appointed in line with the requirements of the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments. On the face of it, that seems satisfactory, at least in the context of the Bill as it stands. However, I understand that the current commissioner has not previously been asked to monitor such appointments on the grounds of sexual orientation. Nor has she ever been asked in the past specifically to ensure that lesbian, gay or bisexual people should be represented on public bodies. Is that the best way to give this group confidence in the process of appointment to the CEHR; and will the Minister give us any reassurance?
	I have tried to be brief. I could have added a third concern about the Bill, namely about the powers and the independence of the new commission as compared with its predecessor bodies, but I was correct in assuming that many other people would take up that point. I hope that the Government will work on the Bill during its passage through the House in the collaborative way that best suits such legislation and this Chamber.
	We shall need to listen to and learn from each other across the Floor of the House if we are to make the best of the opportunity offered by the Bill to continue the work of removing illegal discrimination from our society.

Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one of those occasions on which you discover that all your remarks follow on from what has been already said, but I am afraid that I have to do so, not only because I normally take responsibility on behalf of this party for disability issues—I feel that shop steward's rights must be asserted here—but because the Government will need a bit of encouragement to be as brave as they can about the Bill and to try not to get sidetracked on to all the little things going on around it.
	The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is not in his place—in such a long debate, it would be unreasonable to expect him to listen to all of it—performed a very reassuring function. He was the voice of reason but also the big bad wolf for everyone here: he said that the Bill is totally unreasonable and that it is imposing on people's ground. The fact is that there would be no discrimination if people behaved in a fair, decent, reasonable and thoughtful manner. They do not. They have not. Through ignorance or, shall we say, a lack of effort, they do not move. So action, often positive action, as we say in other fields, must be taken for us to move forward.
	I have said on numerous occasions that the piecemeal way in which we have dealt with disability legislation needs to be brought together. It happened slowly; we tagged on; we found Bills. Other forms of discrimination have to be dealt with in the same way; we must pull these things together. I do not know about carts before horses; I came to the conclusion that we had an engine put in the back when it should have been put in the front. Perhaps four-wheel drive would be slightly more appropriate. My noble friend Lord Lester, having presented a Bill that would have done that a while ago may feel a little aggrieved, but he can be reassured by the fact that he casts a long shadow over this debate.
	While sitting comfortably inside that, I say that we must move forward and bring this to a coherent whole where all these strands can be used to support each other. Returning to my original area of experience—I would not say expertise—disability is not confined to one group, it extends to every group in society. The example that I was given in conversation with a few people before this debate was that of a woman from an ethnic minority who happens to be in a wheelchair. Where does she go to deal with any particular problem? She may well be discriminated against on all grounds. Throw religion in there, and one might feel like saluting the Government's courage more than their wisdom when listening to this debate, but it must be dealt with.
	There must be somewhere we should all be able to go and figure out where the principal problem lies. Positive action is required in this field. The Government must take it on. Once again, I hope that they will get the Bill into place and get the full Equality Act to back it up as soon as possible.
	To turn briefly to the Bill in detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—the senior shop steward in this department—said, but to go against my noble friend a bit, at least in spirit, we need the technical guidance provided by that committee. The simple reason is that the diversity of technical information required in disability is so much greater. It is not that it is more important; it is just that we will need that technical advice. For well over a decade, I have been officially dealing with that area, but I am constantly learning about new syndromes and problems that I did not know existed. It is very diverse.
	Also, technical activity that can be used to ameliorate those problems is changing all the time. I use the example of being a dyslexic. Voice-operated computing will potentially revolutionise the workplace for us. Other innovations are occurring, such as lighter, better wheelchairs. I could go on for ever. Given that degree of diversity and change, we will need that committee. It may have to change; it may become smaller; it may well have to continue as an advisory committee for the simple reason of the amount of information and the rate of change. I hope that the Government will ensure that there is no finite limit and make clear that five years is not the absolute maximum for which they expect the committee to be in place. Change it; make it smaller; or establish new lines of communication; but that flow of information is required.
	Having said that, I hope that the Bill is passed as soon as possible; improved where necessary; and that we can set up a more logical basis, bringing in the equality Act that will be needed. Let us hope that we can eventually say that we are just monitoring the situation and not campaigning in the areas of discrimination.

Lord Ouseley: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the many people across the country who ceaselessly and tirelessly work for their fellows, their brothers and sisters, who suffer discrimination and inequality. I am speaking not only of those in the existing commissions but also of those who voluntarily give up their time on a daily basis to help those who are the victims of discrimination and exclusion.
	I also congratulate the Government on achieving a wide range of support for the Bill, which demonstrates their intention to eliminate all forms of unfair discrimination and to enhance the fundamental human rights of all members of our society. The Bill represents a giant step change from the tentative proposals set out in the White Paper Fairness for All, which promised inter alia a light-touch enforcement, especially for the private sector. That approach outraged many stakeholders and interest groups because it is surely not possible to achieve an even lighter touch than the one that already exists on anti-discrimination enforcement.
	Praise must go both to the staff who worked on bringing the Bill together and to Jacqui Smith, now the Minister of State for Schools. It has not been an easy task to straddle the demands of the different interest groups and stakeholders. We now have a broad consensus in your Lordships' House supporting these proposals. However, that consensus and support have been achieved by trying to please the many diverse interests. As a result, we now have a Bill containing numerous inconsistencies and anomalies. As has been said by many noble Lords, that would best be remedied by having a single equality Act.
	The future introduction of a single equality Act to harmonise, simplify and modernise the raft of existing anti-discrimination legislation was belatedly made a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party at the recent general election. Given the complexity of the existing equality regulations, a harmonised equality Act would provide clarity to enable us to determine the sort of enforcement body that we require. We would then also have a better understanding of what needed to be done and how it could be done most effectively. Thus, a single equality Act should precede the Equality Bill now before your Lordships' House.
	The Government have partially acknowledged that point through the reviews they have set up on existing discrimination law and the reasons for persistent discrimination and inequalities, both of which will report some time next year. The outcome of those reviews should inform the shape of a single equality Bill and influence the planning for the establishment of a CEHR. If not, what is the point of the two reviews? How can the Government be committed to clarity, simplicity and effectiveness in the operation of the proposed new body if they pursue the present course? Therefore, while the CEHR is urgently needed, it would be better to put the horse before the cart and get it right the first time.
	That said, the fundamental duty of the proposed new body, especially as it is stated in the much-mentioned Clause 3, sets the tone for the challenges ahead. There is the matter of the text and the wording about the creation of a society, but the ultimate goal is to create the conditions that enable us to be part of a society in which people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination. It is very aspirational, but it is right to be aspirational. The legislation should help us achieve the respect for, and protection of, each individual's human rights. There must be respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, and each must have an equal opportunity to participate in society. There should be mutual respect between communities based on understanding and the valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights.
	Those may be seen as fine words; I think they are excellent words. Is this aspirational? Yes, it is. Is it achievable? Yes, it is. How do we do it? We do it with demonstrable political will, adequate resources, strong comprehensive and coherent legislation, unfettered, effective enforcement and powerful political and corporate leadership to stand up to those detractors and opponents ready and willing to dub this "political correctness gone mad".
	Are we prepared to let all those who discriminate or condone discrimination know that they will be pursued, caught and punished? We are probably not prepared to do so. Are we prepared to support the victims of everyday discrimination by giving them the confidence to challenge all perceived acts of unfair and unjust treatment? Probably not, if we continue to be fearful of being accused of perpetuating a mythical compensation culture.
	What would be the consequences of not getting these vital proposals and consequential arrangements right first time? It would result in more of the same, and probably worse.
	I shall highlight some, but only some, of the disparities and anomalies that must be addressed in the Bill. In doing so, I apply six tests against the following criteria: clarity of purpose; simplicity for comprehension; fairness in treatment for all; consistency for coherence; reasonable for proportionality; and effectiveness for outcomes.
	For a start, the Bill's provisions allow public authorities, Ministers and the Crown to be exempt from compliance with equality legislation on too many occasions. That is not even maintaining the status quo; it is worse. There are too many opportunities for ministerial interventions through directions and approval requirements, which make independence from political interference unachievable. Any CEHR should be accountable to Parliament.
	There are inconsistent definitions of a public body or authority. Private and voluntary bodies providing public services do not have to comply with the Human Rights Act or with certain provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. Those must be addressed.
	The public duty for race, gender and disability should be extended across all strands of discrimination and inequality. It should therefore cover sexual orientation, age, transgender status and religion and belief grounds. The terms of coverage should include harassment and there should be consistency for all people affected by discrimination.
	Clause 38 refers to the dissolution of the existing commissions not later than 31 March 2009. It is understood that the Commission for Racial Equality will not be dissolved until then. What good reasons are there for the proposed commission not to begin its comprehensive operations at the same time for all strands of discrimination? If the date is to be April 2009, that would provide ample time for a single equality Act to be put in place, and for a shadow enforcement body to be positioned to plan and effect a seamless takeover and a coherent beginning. Obviously, for some people, 2009 is too far away.
	A disability committee is considered necessary—the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a powerful and valid case for one. There is also justification for other committees to represent the other strands of equality characteristics. There is no doubt about that. Some of the interest groups and stakeholders are already saying that they see the need for that.
	Separate committees are proposed for Wales and Scotland. Bearing in mind the strategic importance of the capital city and its reputation as the most ethnically diverse capital city in the world, should there not be a London committee? Certainly, that is one of the things for which the Mayor of London will be campaigning.
	The final point is about the level of support for victims of discrimination. Discrimination is still pervasive in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made an excellent exposé of the problems faced by people with learning disabilities. Most of those who are the victims of discrimination do not complain. That is a fact. They are afraid; they are victimised. They have no voice—no choice. Employers especially know what they can get away with. They know that they would be unlikely to be caught, and even if they were the punishment would be insignificant.
	In February of this year the EOC published new research showing that each year around 30,000 working women are sacked, made redundant or leave their jobs due to pregnancy discrimination.
	Information in the reply to a Written Question that I tabled last June revealed that, in that year, the amounts earmarked by the various existing commissions for assisting complainants of discrimination were derisory. For the CRE it was 2 per cent of its annual budget; for the EOC it was 3.1 per cent; and for the DRC, 5.5 per cent. If we are really serious about ending discrimination we have to recognise that it should be more in the region of about 30 per cent to 40 per cent of annual budgets, whatever those annual budgets are.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, we must not fluff this opportunity. It must be equality for all. This Bill is very good but it needs to be improved. It is long overdue, but it is needed now. However, it should not precede a harmonised single equality Act, which is promised, a draft of which has already been before this House, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
	The proposed CEHR should bring on board the work of all existing commissions and the new areas of coverage at the same time. In the mean time, adequate support must be given to the agencies that are providing support and protection by leading on the issues of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation discrimination.
	The many disparities, inconsistencies and anomalies identified have to be addressed during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. If it is to be successful, the new CEHR needs to be an effective independent body with adequate resources and an unequivocal commitment to tackle all discrimination vigorously, in order to build and maintain trust and confidence across all sections of British society.
	Finally, the proposed CEHR must be established in shadow form with independent-minded commissioners who bring no baggage with them from the existing regimes, thereby obviating the likelihood of potential disruptive cabals and self-serving hierarchies.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, welcome this long-awaited Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, as someone who has long fought for the rights of children, I am particularly pleased to see in Clause 11(2)(a) that "age" is the definition of one of the groups or communities which share a common attribute and therefore will be covered by the Bill. Clearly this could be used to challenge measures that have an adverse effect on children and young people and, arguably, discriminate against them because of their young age. There is therefore the potential for the Bill to correct a long-standing gap in legislation to protect children's rights.
	In this context, it would be helpful in Clause 82(1) if proposed new Section 76A(1)(b), at page 46 line 37, were worded, "to promote equality of opportunity between men and women, boys and girls".
	In October 2002, the international treaty monitoring body for the Convention on the Rights of the Child—that is, the Committee on the Rights of the Child—urged the UK Government to establish independent human rights institutions for children across the UK and nationally. Such institutions should have a broad mandate and appropriate powers and resources in accordance with the Paris principles for independent human rights organisations adopted by the UN in 1993.
	The Bill is a wonderful opportunity to create an independent human rights institution that will promote and protect the human rights of children as well as adults, but it needs a few changes. However, if the Commission for Equality and Human Rights is to work for children, the legislation must be inclusive and explicit. A specific reference to children in Part 1 of the Bill would ensure that from the outset children's rights and interests would be considered and effectively resourced within this new body.
	I was glad to see that in the revised Bill Clause 9(2)(b) refers to "other human rights", which means that the measures in the Bill will not now take precedence over the UNCRC. However, I would still like to see the six core international human rights treaties named in this part of the Bill. An explicit mention, in particular, of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would mean that, from the outset, this body would have to work for children. The European Court of Human Rights has acknowledged the deficiencies of the ECHR in protecting children's rights and it now uses the UNCRC as the framework for making judgments about them.
	It is now accepted wisdom that children are not served well by organisations concerned also with the rights and welfare of adults. There have been many advances in recent years to listen to the voices and concerns of children, but organisations are still too often run in the image of adults, with working practices and agendas largely adult-dominated. That is why this new body must have dedicated structures, post holders and resources for children.
	We can learn from the National Care Standards Commission, which has a children's rights director with a specific remit to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children within the organisation, which, as we know, was established by the Care Standards Act 2000. Right now, the Change for Children programme gives much emphasis to getting services and structures right for children at a local level, with the Children Act 2004 establishing the posts of director of children's services and lead member for children's services—all proof that children have distinct needs and can too easily be lost, as in the appalling case of Victoria Climbié and other children who have followed her.
	But children are not just powerless at an individual level; they are probably the least powerful group in society at a collective level, mainly because they do not have a vote. So I ask the Minister whether one of the new commissioners within the new equality commission will be designated to work with the Children's Commissioners of the UK countries on children's equality rights issues.
	Of course, the Children's Commissioner for England is further proof of children's need for a dedicated champion and organisation, though clearly this welcome new post does not fulfil the role of an independent human rights institution for children as laid out in the Paris principles. The Children's Commissioner is a high-profile listening officer.
	The legislation about the Children's Commissioner was improved considerably as it passed through this House, giving him independent powers and requiring him to "have regard to" the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the Children's Commissioner for England is not rights based, unlike those in the rest of the UK and Europe. Whereas commissioners in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland must promote and protect children's rights, the general function of England's commissioner is narrowly to
	"promote awareness of the views and interests of children".
	It is worth pointing out that under Clause 17 the new equality commissioners can take up individual cases of discrimination whereas the Children's Commissioner for England cannot. There is clearly potential, therefore, given the limited powers of the Children's Commissioner, for this to be partly mitigated if a dynamic and productive partnership could be developed between him and one of the new equality commissioners, particularly if that commissioner is given a special brief to deal with children's equality issues.
	Some might be anxious that making special claims for children in the Bill opens the floodgate for other vulnerable groups. Perhaps that is no bad thing, though to these people I would say four things. First, children are the only people in our society, besides convicted prisoners, the insane and your Lordships, who are not allowed to vote. They are unenfranchised and lack a political voice. Secondly, babies and children as a group are uniquely vulnerable and dependent on adults to protect their rights.
	Thirdly, in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children have their own comprehensive set of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. As I said earlier, the European Court of Human Rights now uses the convention as its framework for making judgments. In a recent judgment the court asserted:
	"The human rights of children and the standards to which all governments must aspire in realising these rights for all children are set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child".
	It could not be more clear.
	Fourthly, equality issues are still too often framed by adults for adults. How many of us think of child workers when considering age equality in the workplace? How many of us think of children as the victims of violence when discussing domestic violence? And how many of us think of babies and children when considering the public's fear of crime? Children are easy to ignore, and that must change.
	I turn to an issue which has taken up many hours of debating time in your Lordships' House, with the Minister sitting on that very Front Bench, but which I consider has still not been resolved. I refer to equal protection for children under laws of assault. I hope and believe that the Bill and the commission it sets up provide a chink of light in an otherwise dark area of policy. With due respect to my noble friend Lord Lester and his amendment to the Children Bill in 2004—now an Act—the problem with the law as it stands is that it is not firmly based on equal rights and is still subject to the vagaries of interpretation in a way to which the law as it applies to adults is not subjected.
	I believe that there is no right for anyone to hit another person, no matter what the age of the person being attacked and what the relationship with the attacker. This does not preclude the law being applied sensitively, humanely and helpfully to caring parents doing their best to teach their children how to behave. But we need a clear line drawn on the basis of equal human rights, and that is what I seek from the Bill. I emphasise that my noble friend and I share the objective of stopping all violence against children. We merely differ on the means by which this is to be achieved.
	The Commission for Equality and Human Rights marks a watershed in our commitment to human rights and equality. These are exciting times, and children should be at the centre: it is children who offer hope and a path to the human rights culture to which we all aspire. If we want children to be part of this new body, we must make sure that the legislation explicitly requires this. It is much better to have children in mind when the foundation stones are being laid than trying to build them in later.
	I shall not repeat them, but I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, regarding Stonewall's concerns about the provision of goods and services to lesbians and gay men facing discrimination. We have all had a number of such cases drawn to our attention. There is an opportunity here for change and I hope that the Government will listen to it.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it is a great pleasure that this Bill should begin its legislative journey in your Lordships' House. I am sure that for many in the other place, where the Bill had its first trial run, that will have been a disappointment. However, when I look around the Chamber and see the cumulative experience and expertise that your Lordships have already brought to bear on this subject, I am sure that the decision was the right one.
	When I think about expertise and equal opportunities, I always think of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has already confessed his past to us and was hugely responsible for shaping the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. He was also the person to whom those of us who were involved with the EOC in its early years—especially the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the first and very distinguished chairman of the commission, who has also spoken very effectively today—owed so much for his guidance and support. As usual, I agree with much of what he said.
	During the relatively short time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have been particularly impressed by the time that has been devoted to human rights and equal opportunity issues. We have passed important laws on disability, civil partnerships, equal opportunities for women to join clubs on equal terms with men and on the right of political parties to increase women's representation in Parliament through positive action. We have debated disability, equal opportunities in education, proper treatment of asylum seekers and those in prison, and much else that we are also dealing with today. So I, too, want to congratulate the Government on that, as well as on the immense trouble taken in preparing this Bill.
	It is clear from the considerable evidence that your Lordships have received that not everyone believes that the Bill is yet shaped precisely to reflect all the concerns expressed during the extensive consultations carried out. Most particularly, as has been stressed again today, there is the lack of a simultaneous underpinning equality Act. But, however that may be, it is clear that the majority of organisations affected by its provisions—voluntary and statutory and including the three existing regulatory bodies that have done so much already for those who rely on them—have all in principle welcomed the decision to create the single commission.
	Having said that, I must admit that I am far from being an unconditional fan of what appears to be a growing cult of creating giant regulators. Using a different example—namely, Ofcom—I remain to be convinced that it was wise to combine the "techy" and economic side of regulating broadcasting with the sensitive issues of content. Nor indeed do such combinations, despite the practical advantages of providing a "one-stop shop" and cross-cutting opportunities, always deliver the kind of financial efficiency savings that might be expected—and which the Treasury will certainly expect. However, I have to admit that, warts and all, because of the multiple strands of equality, growing and urgently needing attention, the single commission route may be the only sensible way forward.
	A fair amount of fun has already taken place about the likely cost of the new commission. The current combined cost of the three existing commissions is estimated at some £43 million, while estimates for the CEHR—which no doubt the Minister will confirm or otherwise—could be considerably higher. But additional resources will certainly be needed for dealing with the widened responsibilities proposed, such as the welcome new general duty on public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality between men and women. Then there are the specific new responsibilities proposed, on age discrimination and discrimination on grounds of religion and of sexual orientation. The new human rights duties will also add to the total cost of the new commission.
	In those circumstances, the CRE in particular is understandably concerned that there should be no reduction in the resources available for any of the services provided by each strand of the existing commission. So, on top of the estimated £24 million for the non-recurring set-up costs, the commission must be provided with guaranteed ongoing financial resources sufficient to enable it to make the important contribution the Government expect—in other words, to live up to the high expectations raised by the Government themselves.
	Thus there will be obvious challenges for the Government and the commission. First, and not least, is the need to ensure that there is an agreed allocation between each of the existing and the proposed new equality areas of whatever budget is agreed. I very much hope that the Minister will explain the background and how all that will be achieved. Secondly will be the need to ensure that the budget eventually agreed is both sufficient and guaranteed for a long enough period to underpin the essential independence from government that will be vital for the new commission to do its job—a point made forcibly by the CRE and noble Lords today.
	On the other hand, there will be expectations of cost savings resulting from the creation of a single body. So the commission will need navigational skill of a "Scylla and Charybdis" quality if it is to avoid an over-glossy Ofcom-style overspend and yet avoid Treasury attempts to cut its resources in real terms.
	Other aspects of independence will be important to the credibility of the new commission, all the more so at a time when the Government are striving so hard to ensure diversity and independence when making appointments to the judiciary. They are protected, of course, by the fact that they are appointed for life, but not so the commissioners, who will be appointed only for a fixed term, with no certainly of reappointment. In those circumstances it will surely be essential for the appointment and re-appointment processes to be as open and transparent as humanly possible and at the very least subject to the full rigour of scrutiny by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	Not just appointments but also the commissioners' freedom of action from government interference will need reinforcing. Can being asked to comply with directions from the Secretary of State, for example, really be consistent with the kind of independence required?
	I want to make two comments about the commission's proposed powers. In my EOC experience the fact that the Sex Discrimination Act gave us enforcement powers that could and would be used if necessary meant that our powers of persuasion, our promotional powers, achieved much greater success. The second crucially important power was our ability to give financial support to occasional test cases to clarify the law.
	I may previously have mentioned to your Lordships one of the first early cases backed by the EOC of Price v Civil Service Commission. It was important in two respects: first, in helping people to understand the new legal concept of indirect discrimination—where seemingly the same conditions are applied to both sexes, but in practice to the clear disadvantage of one sex—and, secondly, even more interestingly, that case exposed age limits as potentially sex-discriminatory. As your Lordships know, these are now to be a fresh and a very important responsibility of the CEHR.
	I understand that moves are now afoot to spend fewer resources on individual cases and more on strategic campaigns. In general this makes sense, but I hope that the Minister will reassure your Lordships that the new commission's basic powers, when considering possible test cases of this kind, will remain at least as clear as they are now.
	I want to end by saying that I am encouraged that the new commission is to have a range of HR promotional powers and eventually a full equalities Act. The ability to encourage good practice and promote good relations within and between different communities where potential or actual discrimination may exist must be important.
	Children's human rights have been stressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Walmsley, so I shall not overemphasise that. However, many of us put huge effort into trying to improve the Children's Commissioner for England's powers and general function, as the Children Act 2004 passed through this House. Improvements were made, but it is to the CEHR that children will look to promote and protect their human rights and to tackle age discrimination as well as the other forms of discrimination they face.
	Finally, I hope that the Minister will explain how the time between now and 2007—or is it 2009?—will be spent, where the responsibilities for those important tasks will remain in the mean time, and how the resources will be divided.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I, too, give this innovatory and powerful Bill a warm welcome. I am in good company, not only with most of your Lordships' House but also because the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-Robles, has just published a report saying the same thing. During the sessions of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights I came to the conclusion that a Commission for Equality and Human Rights was the way forward for our public services. This also stems from my experience as a civil servant and as a member of the Immigration Complaints Audit Committee. I know that my former colleagues and others worked hard and conscientiously administering public services, but there was not a culture of entitlement and respect for human rights. The very word "entitlement" was regarded as suspect, a bit strident, a bit stroppy, a bit dissident; and "human rights" were thought of as something foreigners failed in. There was a culture of dealing honestly, and there was a culture of safeguarding national funds, taxpayers' money, against fraud and erroneous claims. Fairness—equity—came into it as well. I found those admirable. But they do not add up to the total of what is required in public administration. There are services where all members of the public are treated equally disrespectfully.
	The values of dignity and respect will be left out of the system, drawn on only ad hoc, and then only if the administrator is that sort of a person, if a human rights culture is not promulgated within the public service. Equity without respect is chilly, just as justice without mercy is hard. It all needs to be more human. As Professor Richard Sennett says:
	"Modern institutions are bad at dealing with individuals who are ordinary—at according them respect even though they are nothing special".
	He adds:
	"A sweeping transformation of the institutions of everyday life is necessary if this Parliament"
	—our Parliament now—
	"is serious about fostering a culture of respect".
	The Commission for Equality and Human Rights can be the agent of that transformation.
	For any noble Lord who is uneasy with abstractions, may I suggest that "entitlement" and "rights" are the concepts we use to systematise our ideas of dignity and respect for other people. The Human Rights Act, an enduring monument to this Government, advanced these ideas. Its implementation achieved, for instance, a guarantee of the right to life for one Mr Burke and through him every other elderly patient in hospital; childcare benefit for a severely disabled son, which enabled a mother to return to work; and next of kin status for same-sex partners. But all those people had to go to court to obtain their rights. The Human Rights Act had then no authoritative institutional champion to create a culture. It did not of itself create a culture; that is the task of a commission.
	The great usefulness of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights is that it has a framework for balancing conflicts of rights. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell referred to that. None of these rights are absolute—that is the issue—except freedom from torture. I recommend the analysis in the new book Human Rights in the Community in your Lordships' Library on this aspect.
	As to the combination of equality and human rights: equality is of course only one of the human rights given quasi-constitutional status in our law. But arguably it is the most important, apart from the right to life itself. It is the right that must accompany any other right, and it is the one whose denial makes a mockery of dignity and respect for individuals. Therefore, equality should be a general interest, as my noble and learned friend the Secretary of State said. The Bill's provision for discrimination beyond gender, race and disability is absolutely right and it could go farther, as other noble Lords have mentioned.
	By the same token, it is indeed a matter for regret that the Commission for Racial Equality cannot be in at the beginning of the new commission. Equality needs to be mainstreamed into a normal part of obtaining employment, goods and services to work in practice. I agree with my noble friend Lord Parekh that it should not be the preserve only of its own policy community, representative only of those affected by the particular discrimination at issue.
	A Commission for Equality and Human Rights could, for instance, if it included race, straightaway improve the balance of rights in dealing with Gypsies and Travellers, much criticised by the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner in his report. But there is an imbalance between the equality powers and the human rights powers in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, and we shall need to tease out whether that is right in Committee.
	I particularly welcome the emphasis on looking to a positive future through the provisions for promotion and for agreement and conciliation procedures, rather than only castigating past offences. But I agree with others that we shall need to examine whether the commission has enough independence as well as the resources to act on that independence. Professor Gil-Robles also makes recommendations on those points, which I commend.
	I also hope that my noble friend can support the idea that the power at Clause 12(2) to monitor the effectiveness of the equality and human rights enactment should include the important international treaties to which we are signatory. I hope that the power to make codes of practice another positive and forward-looking power means making codes with evidential status so that courts can refer to them in finding whether there is a case to answer.
	Finally, I have one reservation in my warm welcome. It relates to Part 2, where it looks as though the important provisions to guarantee freedom of religion and belief have tipped over very far in the interests of religious organisations at the expense of freedom for individuals. I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the British Humanist Association and I hope we can ensure that the freedom not to observe a religion in obtaining work, goods and services, can be properly preserved.

Lord Dholakia: I had to get that dig in, my Lords.
	I am not surprised by the consensus about the Bill. We must not delay in replacing the outdated, fragmented and unsatisfactory legislative framework that has existed all this time. I do not underestimate the impact of existing legislation, but successive governments have been reluctant to respond to many of the reviews and recommendations made by equality bodies such as the CRE and the EOC. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, but that was driven more by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry than by any other factor, as we were rightly reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids.
	It is not in dispute that the United Kingdom has substantial anti-discrimination legislation on the statute book. In that respect, we are far more advanced than some of our European neighbours. Equality of opportunity is one of the core values of our civilised society. It has helped to build a strong, competitive and successful Britain. That does not mean, however, that our framework of anti-discrimination legislation could not be better. There is clear evidence that we still have a long way to go.
	Could we really say that we have achieved equality for all our citizens? As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asked, do women earn the same as men? Why are black men more likely to be unemployed than white men? Why is society still uneasy when it comes to gay people, who are constantly harassed during work and leisure? Have we really tackled the disadvantages suffered by disabled people?
	Who would have imagined in the 1960s, with the large influx of Commonwealth immigrants, that the United Kingdom would have no fewer than four separate pieces of race relations legislation? Such legislation was first introduced in 1965, and it was followed in the 1970s with legislative measures to tackle sex discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is also on the statute book. Of course, there has been progress, but it has been slow and cumbersome. Much of the early legislation on race introduced over 25 years ago needs drastic revision. We need a fundamental review to ensure that what we promote helps to make a difference to people's lives.
	There is always a temptation to tinker with different clauses in a Bill. We should avoid such temptations. We have argued, in my party's manifesto, for a cultural change in the way that our workplaces and institutions function. As the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, pointed out, the Government have undertaken a major review of our equality bodies.
	There has also been meaningful consultation, which resulted in the document Equality and Diversity: Making It Happen. The questions posed by the Government were the right ones: what should our institutions' top priority be? How can they best contribute to a more just and equal society? What are the structural options for such a single equality body? Many of the responses now form the basis of the Bill before us.
	More important, we welcome the lead role taken by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, and in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We are privileged to have in your Lordships' House some of the practitioners whose job was to give effect to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Howe of Idlicote, have led organisations such as the CRE and the EOC. We welcome their contribution in today's debate. In the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, we had one of the most effective chairmen of the CRE in recent times. We should seriously consider the points that he made. Political cronies should not be part of the new structure that we intend to establish.
	There are some who are not here, without whose contribution race relations would have remained stagnant. I will single out the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead as the most reforming Home Secretary of his day and the late Lord Bonham-Carter as the first chairman of the then Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission. Their pioneering work has done much to build our diverse, but cohesive society.
	Yesterday, many of us attended the memorial service for Earl Russell. The minor canon quoted Oliver Cromwell, and how appropriate were his words:
	"let us pray for those who seek asylum in this country, as also for those who defend their cause, and those who make and administer the law concerning them; for justice and equality among all who dwell in this country".
	I have no doubt that, if Earl Russell had been in the Chamber today, he would have intervened on more than one occasion, but he would have supported the principles of the Bill.
	I must also single out my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has a distinguished record on human rights. He is a pioneer of anti-discrimination legislation in Britain. I trust that he will not be embarrassed if I mention that I have known him for over 40 years. In the early 1950s and 1960s, when race equality was not fashionable, he was instrumental in supporting organisations such as CARD—the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, he did not get much joy out of the then Home Secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, but he continued tirelessly ensuring that race legislation became the unequivocal statement of public policy in the country. He is internationally respected on matters of rights, liberties and equality. I have no doubt that your Lordships' House will take serious note of his comments.
	I asked earlier who in the 1960s could have believed that we would have legislative measures to tackle racial discrimination. History tells us why it was necessary to introduce the measures in the way that we did. The Race Relations Act 1965 was the gentle persuasion to prepare the public to tackle discrimination in public places. The Race Relations Act 1968 established the principle of conciliation as a means of tackling grievances based on race, colour, national and ethnic origin. The Race Relations Act 1976 was the start of a strategic approach to tackling institutional discrimination.
	Over the years, the position of black and ethnic minority communities has changed substantially. We have the benefit of the latest census figures published by the Office for National Statistics. They show that, in April 2001, 9.9 per cent of the population in England and Wales identified themselves as being from an ethnic minority. In London, 31.2 per cent of people identified themselves as being from an ethnic minority. Evidence published by the Cabinet Office in its report Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal shows that 70 per cent of people from ethnic minorities live in the 88 most deprived local authority districts, compared with 40 per cent of the general population.
	Further evidence tells us that, in 1999, only 30 per cent of Pakistani pupils, 37 per cent of black pupils and 30 per cent of Bangladeshi pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with 50 per cent of white pupils and 62 per cent of Indian pupils. An African-Caribbean graduate is more than twice as likely to be unemployed as a white person with A-levels. African men with degrees are seven times more likely to be unemployed than white male graduates.
	There has been a massive shift in Britain's demographic make-up. The pattern is constantly changing. We no longer talk about the first generation of immigrants. Primary immigration has virtually stopped. We are reaching a stage at which most black and ethnic minority persons are born in this country. Despite that, it is safe to assume that discrimination occurs in all fields. Almost all the research agencies and the Commission for Racial Equality have confirmed that. It is no good being squeamish about it. Minorities are entitled to the same standard of consideration, fairness and respect as anyone else. Can we be certain that they receive it?
	Race equality should never be underestimated or undermined. In the final analysis, the emphasis in any policy determination should be on the manner and the extent to which minorities' deepest feelings about their race, colour, national or ethnic origin are fully accepted in the community and by the policy makers.
	I have repeatedly stated that trends in race relations show that discrimination persists at a high level. Minorities are still disproportionately to be found among the poor; the homeless; the unemployed and those who have never worked; those who are stopped and searched; those in penal institutions; and those who suffer as victims of racial harassment and violence. The fact remains that racism and racial discrimination are an everyday reality in the life of many of our people. Geographically and economically, many of them are still in the precarious position of being in the same place allocated to them when they first came here. The most frightening aspect is the failure of many of our institutions, even now, to take into account the cultural diversity of our different communities.
	I have always enjoyed the humour of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He questioned the duty of the equality commission to create a society where there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual. Nothing affects your dignity more than being refused a job on the ground of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The loss of dignity and hurt feelings already form part of our industrial tribunal deliberations. Desiring one's dignity is the backbone of human rights legislation.
	We have continued with minor tinkering since the Race Relations Act 1976. To an extent, we had no alternative other than to implement European Community law; the EU equality directives; and some limited measures on disability discrimination. Until now, there has not been a comprehensive and strategic approach to tackling discrimination and promoting equality. All that we have succeeded in doing is bringing greater incoherence to the work of the three equality bodies now in statute.
	Even now, questions remain. There is consensus about the need to create a single equality Commission, but how effective would it be without a single equality Act? As my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill pointed out, we would not have legislated by first creating an equality and human rights commission and then legislating to reform the substance of equality legislation. I fully endorse that view. A better way to proceed is to see whether a common strand of equality legislation is appropriate to make unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, especially in the provision of goods, facilities and services, education, the use and disposal of premises and the exercise of public functions, as contained in the Bill.
	In essence, equality legislation—it is at present incomplete—that removes the existing inconsistency is a prerequisite for creating an equality and human rights commission, not the other way round. If we enact the Bill in the present form, the law is more likely to be shaped by challenges in the courts. The legal outcomes of challenges will set out the boundaries within which the Bill will operate. We are missing a golden opportunity to have a wider equality Bill that would put together the different strands in fully comprehensive anti-discrimination and equality legislation.
	I accept that it will be some time before we reach that point. Therefore, it is essential that the Bill contains provisions to ensure that the impact of its operation is closely monitored and an obligation placed on the new body to ensure that the Bill, when enacted, is constantly reviewed and that a consultation process is established towards rational equality legislation for an equality and human rights commission.
	The Bill has aroused considerable interest, as demonstrated by the large number of briefings that we have all received. As I said, there is a temptation to tinker with various provisions to meet objectives contained in some of the briefings. I shall avoid that temptation because that is precisely what the Government have done with various pieces of equality legislation already in place. If the Government can indicate the timescale for the single equality Bill, that would help us to ease the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House.
	I declare an interest. Much of my professional career has been spent in race relations. I was a member of the first body, the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, set up by the Harold Wilson administration under the chairmanship of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, in 1965. I continued with the Community Relations Commission under the chairmanship of Frank Cousins and Mark Bonham-Carter. That was followed by a career in the Commission for Racial Equality under the chairmanships of David Lane, Peter Newsam, Michael Day and Herman Ouseley, now the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. In fact, there is a danger that I will go down in history as a full-time immigrant.
	The Bill gives us an opportunity to probe more fully on some of the aspects of the legislation that is proposed. Let me single out a few issues. The first is the setting up of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. We ought to start from the basis that it is predominantly a law enforcement body and, therefore, should resist the temptation to become a large representative body of different communities. It should also be fully independent of the Government, with a requirement that it should submit its annual report to Parliament and be subject to Select Committee scrutiny if need be.
	The last thing we want is for the Government to interfere in the commission's operational duties. A lean professional organisation is likely to be more effective. I remember my time with the Commission for Racial Equality, where even the purchase of a typewriter required Home Office approval. I am also aware that ample pressure was brought on the commission to mount an investigation into prisons, costing substantial funds when Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons was fully equipped to deal with such matters.
	The Government should ensure that there is no watering down of the CEHR's duties in relation to human rights. We should not underestimate the need for powers to seek a judicial review. We should be aware that the duty to promote equality may not be applicable in all cases and that there is a danger that privacy laws may be breached. We should ensure that equality legislation, when enacted, takes full account of such pitfalls, particularly when it concerns sexuality. There is a need for detailed consultation with interested organisations on the matter. That is not to deny the right to equality, but it is question of how we achieve it. Matters relating to religion also require wider consultation, not a knee-jerk reaction.
	We have waited long enough for the Bill, and we wish to ensure its speedy passage through the House.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and, certainly for me, thought-provoking debate, which has done justice to the ambitious and aspirational nature of the Bill.
	Many distinguished speakers have spoken from a huge range of backgrounds and great knowledge. I pay tribute to all of them. I am mindful of the passion with which everyone has spoken on all sides of your Lordships' House. We have had a greater range of views than perhaps one might have expected. I take on board the strength of feelings and the concerns that have been raised.
	I join the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I have not known the noble Lord anywhere near as long as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mainly because I am much younger. The noble Lord's commitment, energy and passion for the subject is amazing. He has been extraordinarily helpful to me and I thank him from the bottom of my heart.
	The Bill is ambitious. It has an overreaching social aim. The interpretation I would place on Clause 3 is that we want a society in which every individual can achieve his full potential and enjoy equal respect and dignity. We want a society in which every one has an equal chance to participate and contribute, and where our communities are strong, dynamic and form part of the fabric of modern Britain. In other words, a society in which I wish to live.
	A number of themes have come out of the debate this evening. I noted them with great interest. I shall attempt to address most, if not all, of the questions that have been put by your Lordships, with the proviso that I make on all occasions that I shall write on the ones I will undoubtedly forget.
	Noble Lords have focused on issues about how we will set up the commission—the costs, the bureaucracy, how we will link it to the discrimination law review and the equalities review and how the strands of work will fit together. I accept that noble Lords have described this Bill as the cart before the horse, or what a pity we did not have the Equalities Bill at the same time. When something is ready to go and we have the opportunity to push and make a difference in terms of bringing forward the commission, I think that we can all welcome it in the context of the manifesto commitments that have been referred to.
	Noble Lords have concerned themselves with the independence of the commission and its powers. My noble friend Lady Lockwood talked about no regression. I agree. The ambition of the Bill is to build on the success and the powers of the previous commissions. My noble friend Lord Ashley indicated that we should be firm and determined in doing so.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, talked about whether the commission would be better for our customers. We will have an important debate in Committee and on Report about how we make sure that it provides a better service and an appropriate service and does not become a burden on business, for example. That and other concerns were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about how the commission would operate.
	I shall try and deal with those issues in the themes that have been suggested to me. As we have indicated, we expect the commission to open its doors in October 2007 with functions in respect of disability and gender as well as powers in respect of religion and belief, sexual orientation, age and human rights. As noble Lords know, the CRE will join it by March 2009.
	I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, a precise figure for the number of additional staff. As we have made clear, that would primarily be for the commission to decide. But I anticipate that with the range of different resources it will need that there will be additional recruitment in that number. I shall make sure that we send a detailed breakdown of the cost of the set up to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who asked the specific question, and I will put a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
	In looking at what resources the new commission might need, we have indicated that there is a budget of £70 million. That budget has been determined by the Secretaries of State responsible for the different commissions, looking not only at current expenditure, but, as noble Lords would expect, also at the anticipated work of the commission. We believe it is a good settlement; that it represents value for money; and that it will be adequate resourcing. It does not mean, as noble Lords may have suggested, that we have looked at the detail of exactly how the commission will set itself up. We do not believe that that is a job for government but a job for the commission itself.
	We think that the 40 per cent increase, which the figure represents, above the existing budgets of all three commissions, is adequate resourcing for the commission to get going. Of course it is something that we would keep under review.
	As noble Lords will know, we are also making arrangements for transitional commissioners, who will help to make sure that the present commissions move in good order to the new commission and that the work they are currently doing is not disrupted. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that all the appointments will be in accordance with guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which I think is what the noble Baroness was seeking.
	I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden that TUPE will apply to all transfers of staff from the existing commissions to the new commission. All staff will enjoy the protection of TUPE. This is covered in Clause 39 of the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Parekh was concerned—he spoke from a great philosophical point of view and I would love to continue the conversation—about the issues raised in regard to the different strands and making sure that they are represented, but he joined the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden in looking at the role of the different committees. We have said that beyond the disability committee, which is contained in primary legislation, it must be for the commission to decide which committees are appropriate and how it wishes them to be established. So if, for example, the new commission felt that it needed to have a committee—perhaps on an interim basis—on a particular area, it would be for the commission to decide.
	My noble friend Lord Parekh was also concerned about training and networks. He was the only noble Lord to raise that particular question. I ask him to look at Clause 18, which refers to grants. The example I have in mind relates to the race equality councils, but the way in which we have looked at the role of the commission in offering and granting funds is, in a sense, to look at how one might support networks and training.
	My noble friend Lord Parekh also invited me to talk about the common agricultural policy. He will be astonished to hear that I have absolutely no intention whatever of going there tonight, or ever. I know noble Lords will feel that that is a desperate shame. Happy as I always am to talk about Europe on any occasion, sadly, I do not have time today.
	Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and my noble friend Lord Parekh were concerned about the delay, if I might describe it as that, between 2007 and 2009 for the Commission for Racial Equality. The whole issue of racial equality has to be at the heart of the planning for a successful new commission and must not of course be sidelined in the period before the CRE fully transfers into the new commission. We expect the CRE and the commission to work very closely together, both on race equality issues and where race equality intersects with other areas of equality. There will of course be a transitional commissioner for the CRE appointed to the new commission from the outset to ensure a smooth transition.
	I hope that it will be the opposite of the situation to which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred when she described silo management, a concept I understand extremely well. The ambition for the commission is to do precisely the opposite and to have no silos. Part of that will be by making sure that the way in which the commissions come in, and the way in which the new duties and responsibilities are worked through, do not allow for that to happen.
	My noble friend Lady Lockwood wanted to check on the budgeting and whether the combined effects of paragraphs 23, 31, 38 and 55 of Schedule 1 related to the way in which the budget would be allocated as a whole. I hope I can reassure my noble friend. The budget will be allocated by the Secretary of State to the commission as a whole and it will be for the commission to decide how to share the budget between the strategy committees. In doing so, it will need to ensure that the share on which it decides will enable the committees to carry out their functions. But it is right and proper that the commission should decide.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, in particular, and other noble Lords, were interested in how the equalities review and the discrimination law review will impact on the new commission. As noble Lords will know, the equalities review has a remit to address the barriers to equality of opportunity, not to amend the legislation which will establish the new commission. It is early days. The commission will be an independent body, of course, which will have the power to draw up its own strategic plan. However, we hope that it will be of great importance in informing the work of the commission as we look forward to the single equality Bill.
	The prospect of reform of the legislative framework, of course, makes it even more important that the commission should begin without delay its work in bringing together all the equality strands. Hence, the Bill is before your Lordships. We hope that this, the discrimination law review and the equalities review will, in a sense, set a framework for the next few years which will be, as I have already indicated, within the manifesto commitment to bring forward a single equality Act.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady O'Cathain, talked about whether we should delay setting up the commission until after the equalities review. We believe that it is very important to get on with it, because the commission will have a key role to play, with so many new powers in different areas. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that that is a practical approach to ensuring that those issues are addressed appropriately.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, my noble friend Lady Massey and others were concerned about sexual orientation and goods, facilities and services. It may feel like a small addition to the Bill, but I believe that it is quite the reverse. We need to think through very carefully how we do this in practice, and we must do it properly. We have commitments to the law review and the single equality Bill, and we will look to address these issues. But I should not want noble Lords to think that this is a lack of intent—it is more a case of genuinely feeling that we have to do this properly.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, talked about the impact that the Bill might have on small businesses. The commission meets a very strong call from business for a more joined-up approach on discrimination issues. Businesses will enjoy expert information, advice and guidance on all areas of discrimination and human rights law for the first time in one place. This will work regionally to help businesses realise the benefits of diversity and will help them comply with the law, which I think will reduce the chances of costly litigation rather than the opposite.
	There are no new regulatory burdens for employers and service providers. I believe that promoting good practice will be the primary route to driving change. Having information and advice easily and more cost-effectively available will reduce the costs of compliance.
	Reaching out to small and medium-sized enterprises should be a top priority. There should be no regulatory burdens for small businesses either. Having information in the one-stop shop referred to will be better.
	There was concern from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about what would happen to businesses under Part 2 of the Bill in particular. This is not about stopping businesses which provide services continuing to do so; we are saying that they have to provide their services to all. For example, a provider of kosher food is perfectly entitled to continue to provide kosher food. However, the Bill ensures that the provider cannot limit the provision of that food to a particular group unless it falls within Clauses 59, 60 or 61; they would not be commercial organisations. That is the only restriction placed by the Bill.
	On the issue of public authority, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We share the disappointment about the way "public authority" in the Human Rights Act has been interpreted by the courts. The narrow construction of the definition has not fulfilled our hopes and expectations. The Government are following the advice of the Joint Committee and adopting two strategies to approach the problem. First, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester; we are actively seeking a suitable case in which to intervene to argue for a wider definition of public authority. That would include the point raised by a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on local authority-funded residents in private care homes, such as the Leonard Cheshire case.
	Furthermore, we are issuing guidance on how the contracts between public authorities and private organisations for the provision of services may seek to protect convention rights. This is a very important area; noble Lords have referred to the need to think about it very carefully. It will benefit from careful consideration and will therefore be a matter for the discrimination law review to consider.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, asked for reassurance that the definition of public authority is the same as in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. We have been assured by counsel that the definition we have used is the same as that in the Act.
	Noble Lords were interested and concerned about the relationship between the new commission and its role within human rights. As noble Lords know from the Bill, the commission will have no enforcement powers in relation to human rights on the basis that we do not believe that it needs them. There is already a well understood and well used process for challenging alleged breaches of convention rights in courts and tribunals for which public funding is available where appropriate.
	Concerns were raised by noble Lords about the independence of the commission. It is a non-departmental public body. It will operate within the standard framework, which is well understood. It has worked very well for existing commissions which speak very independently on the issues of the day—and rightly so. We believe that that is the right way to go.
	Noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Parekh in particular—talked about the powers of the Secretary of State to direct the commission and whether that compromises its independence. As noble Lords will know from the Bill, the commission is free to initiate its own inquiries and investigations and I do not believe that the powers that we have available conflict with the Paris principles; a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We want the commission to be Paris principles compliant.
	In other areas of government life, noble Lords will have heard me say before that under some circumstances it may be for the Secretary of State to require the commission to provide expert advice on equality and human rights issues. We believe that that is an appropriate power to have in the Bill.
	Noble Lords were also concerned about the role of international treaties in the Bill. The specific monitoring power under Clause 12(2) does not include monitoring the effectiveness of international treaties, but, under the clause, as noble Lords will realise, the commission can monitor the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act in ensuring protection of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The broad power in Clause 14 to give advice can be used to promote compliance with any human rights; for example, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In effect, the commission will be able to monitor the effectiveness of international human rights treaties in the UK and give appropriate guidance if it considers that we are falling short in implementing our international obligations.
	In particular, it will be able to provide advice to the Government on whether domestic legislation complies with the UK's treaty obligations; for example, whether legislation on the detention of children complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. My noble friend Lady Whitaker raised that point with me.
	In the course of Committee and Report, I am sure that we will have many debates about the whole question of the relationship between the commission and enforcement on human rights, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has already raised those issues in his opening speech. The noble Lord also asked about removing the requirement for an unlawful act notice or a court tribunal ruling for a persistent discrimination injunction. Lowering the threshold for seeking an injunction for persistent discrimination to bring it in line with arrangements for an injunction—for example in unlawful advertising and so forth—is interesting and we would like to consider that suggestion further with the noble Lord. On the Equality Bill, we will not be making changes to substantive law and discriminatory practice because it is one of the issues that the forthcoming Law Review may wish to consider—something that the noble Lord raised in particular.
	The right reverend Prelate looked particularly at religion and belief and the issues around Article 9 of the convention—on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Of course, the commission's guidance must respect all of the convention's rights protected by the Human Rights Act. As well as Article 9, we also have in mind particularly Article 8 with respect to private and family life and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Human Rights Act recognises that these rights may conflict and it may sometimes be necessary to balance rights against each other. Therefore, the commission will need to ensure that all of the convention rights, especially the three that I have mentioned, underpin all its work and provide a framework of principles for work across the equality strands. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her concerns about freedom of speech.
	A number of noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood, talked about equal pay and were concerned that the duty would apply to equal pay. The gender duty will require public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and that includes discrimination in pay, so it will cover the Equal Pay Act of 1970. It will also cover contraventions between employers' contractual terms and conditions. In preparing the secondary legislation on the gender duty we will take into account the views of the Women and Work Commission, which was specifically convened by the Prime Minister to look into the pay gap.
	My noble friend Lady Lockwood asked about harassment, which is not expressly covered by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 so is not included in the obligations under the gender duty. Most instances of harassment, as noble Lords will know, already fall within the concept of discrimination because of how the law has developed. In that respect, the gender duty already applies to harassment, although it is not explicitly stated. We are looking to see how we can make an express reference to the elimination of harassments in the duty, when the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has been amended to introduce the duty that is due to come forward.
	My noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady Gale, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, asked about Section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is our absolute intention that there will be no regression in the powers available to the commission as compared to those available to the existing commission. In some cases, powers have been amended and modernised, but we do not intend to remove powers. The commission will be able to use the powers available to it under Clause 12 to advise on existing legislation, and to provide advice to the Government on the health and safety legislation as it applies differently to men and women. We are actively looking at Section 73, including the intention behind its inclusion in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, asked about contract compliance to close the pay gap. The critical issue around contract compliance is that it must be of relevance—that is, requesting a contractor to take action to close a pay gap must be relevant to the outcome of the contract. Public authorities are responsible for their own procurement policies and procedures, but that requirement will have to be taken into account.
	My noble friend Lady Lockwood asked about transgender people. The remit will cover transsexual people; it will be possible to use its enforcement powers for the benefit of trans people, as the EOC can currently. As part of the discrimination law review, we shall look more broadly at the protection from discrimination for transsexual and transgender people.
	The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, raised a particular issue around King's Lynn, which I shall undertake to look into. The situation seems completely ridiculous, as the noble Earl described it—which I hope is what he would expect me to say. I shall more than happily look into it. But that is not the intention of this Bill under any circumstances.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, wanted the details of the timetable. It is not yet in my gift to give that, but of course we will when we can. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality would like the 2009 timetable in the Bill. My view is that we should not tie it in such a restrictive way. As the commission moves forward, it may want to do things in a slightly different way, and I want it to have that flexibility. But we are very clear in our relationship with the commission and very clear that if that is the timetable that it wants, that is the timetable that it will have.
	Clause 11 and the subject of communities is a very interesting area. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that in the context of what was said, and the context of disability, we shall have discussions to see what we can do in that regard.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rix, specifically wanted someone with a learning disability on the disability committee. He will know the requirement for at least one commissioner to be or have been a disabled person. We do not believe that it is helpful to have a specific requirement for that, but I recognise that the DRC has been groundbreaking in appointing a learning-disabled commissioner, who has made a significant contribution to the work of the commission. We would really expect the commission that we are putting in place to regard the DRC as exemplar in that respect and draw from that positive experience. It will be for the commission, too, to decide whether to keep the Learning Disabilities Action Group. We hope that it will consider that very carefully.
	With the communities clause, we are not sure whether it is appropriate to refer to good relations; but, as I have said, I should like to discuss that matter, because I believe that there is work that we could do around that issue.
	All I can say to my noble friend Lady Wilkins and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is that I apologise profusely that the Bill has not yet been made available in accessible formats. Everything that was said about that was absolutely right; I apologise unreservedly, and we shall do it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rix, also asked about the disability committee, whether it would continue and whether five years was the right length of time. My noble friend Lord Ashley asked the same question. We believe that we have got it about right; the review of the disability committee will be independent and will involve a wide-ranging consultation. Following that, it will be open to the Secretary of State to decide how long it should continue before it is dissolved, which may be a short time or may be several years. We want to have that degree of flexibility, but it will be done on the basis of consultation, which must include people and organisations working for, and made up of, people with disabilities. There must be a report of the review that will include the views of those persons consulted, who must include disabled people. I hope that that goes some way to address the points raised by my noble friend Lord Ashley.
	There is concern regarding the shorter term of office of the DRC transitional commissioner. However, that reflects the provisions in the Bill and the fact that the disability committee is part of primary legislation.
	I anticipated that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, would refer to Scotland. The noble Baroness will know that the 2003 executive programme in Scotland included a commitment to establish a commission before the 2007 Scottish parliamentary election. Clause 7 reflects the situation under devolution. We recognise that any new commission in Scotland will have to work very closely with the commission in England. Clause 7(4) allows the commission in England to take action in relation to devolved Scottish matters with the consent of a suitable body in Scotland. That will, of course, be the Scottish Human Rights Committee, but we cannot include it in the Bill because as yet it does not exist. I shall write to the noble Baroness if I have any further details on that.
	The noble Baroness asked why education in Scotland was included in the Bill as it is not a matter for us. That is because discrimination is a reserved matter, although, as the noble Baroness knows, education in Scotland is a devolved matter. Therefore, the issue is included in the Bill in view of its discrimination aspects.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me about the benefits for older people. That is a very important part of the noble Baroness's work and, indeed, we hope that it will constitute a very important part of the benefits flowing from the work of the commission. The commission will be charged with promoting good practice and compliance with the age regulations to be brought in next year, which will make discrimination on grounds of age unlawful in employment and vocational training. That is an incredibly important step forward but we are very mindful of the public sector duty to promote age equality and the different levels of protection against discrimination currently available in law. That forms part of the review of discrimination law. We hope that that review will address those questions and produce solutions. That review will also consider the whole question of public duty protection in the provision of goods, facilities and services in regard to sexual orientation.
	My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden referred to school transport, schools and harassment. I would like to discuss those issues with my noble friend.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Walmsley, referred to children's issues and designating a particular commissioner. The commission's role applies to children just as much as it applies to adults. The duty to promote equality, diversity and human rights and to encourage good relations applies to children and young people. They will have a key stake in the new commission. It will need to conduct meaningful and accessible consultation with that group. Wherever the gender duty places an obligation on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity between men and women, that applies also to boys and girls. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will want to discuss whether that means we should include boys and girls in the Bill. The noble Baroness will know that we shall discuss with the Children's Commissioner the link between his work and the work of the new commission.
	My noble friend Lady Gale asked whether the Women's National Commission would continue. The answer to that is "yes". I also confirm that the board will include a commissioner with special knowledge of Wales. I do not know whether that will be a full-time post. That is for the commission to decide. We recognise that the Welsh Language Act will apply in that case, as my noble friend suggested.
	In drawing to a close I refer to the words of Sir Peter Large, who I had never heard of until yesterday. However, noble Lords will know of the report on restrictions against disabled people, written in 1982. It set the foundations for legislation on disability discrimination. He stated that the report was founded on the straightforward and simple proposition that what is morally indefensible ought no longer to be legally permissible. I believe that applies equally to this Bill. I look forward to continuing the debate at all stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Pursuant to Standing Order 150B (Revival of Bills), Bill deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; Bill presented and read a first time.
	House adjourned at nine minutes past 10 o'clock.